Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Education (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I appreciate the opportunity to raise the issue of education in Scotland, but what I really want to refer to is the crisis in education in Scotland. I am happy to see that hon. Members from all parties are in the Chamber, and I hope that they will all have an opportunity to express their views on a matter that concerns everybody in Scotland. Education is deeply rooted in our traditions, and I hope that there will be enough time to allow everyone who wishes to speak an opportunity to do so.
For centuries, education has been a Scottish priority. It is embedded in our national culture. Embedded in that culture also is a reverence for learning and an endeavour to provide the highest quality for all.
The traditional philosophical strengths of the Scottish system are there for all to see—a national comprehensive unified system from elementary through to university level, allowing each person to develop their abilities to the fullest, irrespective of wealth, background or any other consideration; a system staffed by an all-graduate-trained professional work force; a Scottish generalist flexible approach that is nowadays ideally suited to our ever-changing modern world, allied to an egalitarian attitude that ensures that the. highest quality of education is available to all as of right.
In the Scottish tradition, high-quality education applies across the nation. The well-being, quality and accessibility of our education provision is of national and strategic importance to Scotland. In the past, we educated ourselves out of poverty. I want us now to educate ourselves into prosperity as we approach the future. Scotland's comprehensive education system is a model for success, but sustaining and building on it will require new resources.
The principle of equality of access to education is now under threat, and only an independent Scottish Parliament with real control over our resources will ensure that Scottish priorities once again hold sway. The Scottish education system is somewhat battered, but it is basically sound and strong. It is simply under-resourced, and the most serious threat faced by Scottish education in the long term is persistent underfunding. According to a survey carried out by the CBI in 1994, spending on secondary schools was only 88 per cent. of the OECD average, while the figure for primary schools was 78 per cent.
Everyone acknowledges the importance of early years education in Scotland, but we have a poor record of providing publicly funded pre-school education compared with other European countries. I want that record to be destroyed. I want Scotland to be at the forefront of Europe, instead of trailing behind other countries, as we are now.
There is a mood of crisis in Scottish education. There is frustration, as Scottish local authorities are made to carry the can for the Conservatives' botched reorganisation of Scottish local government. There is anger among Scottish teachers and parents at the fact that the children of Scotland will suffer as a result of the spending cuts forced on Scottish local authorities. That anger and frustration—if the Minister did not know about it—spilled out on to the streets of Edinburgh on Saturday 24 February, when 40,000 parents, teachers and pupils marched to protest against the cuts that threaten Scotland's education system.
It is clear that services will be put under severe strain. The Association of Directors of Education in Scotland anticipates that total cuts in education funding will range from 2 per cent. to 7 per cent.—possibly even more.
The predicted total cuts are estimated to be around £95 million. This week's changes give some authorities £38 million to hand back to council tax payers, with £30 million concentrated on only 10 authorities, but that does nothing to protect vital services. Education is, by definition, the single largest local authority service, and the largest provider of employment in local authorities. As such, it has been the victim of underfunding, not just this year, but in previous years. Reorganisation has merely brought to a head and served to deepen a crisis that was already affecting the funding of our education system and the morale of our teaching profession.
The Scottish School Boards Association has estimated that a local authority with an average education budget of £60 million will be facing a typical 10 per cent. cut. That would result in the loss of between 90 and 180 teaching jobs and around 40 non-teaching posts. The quality of education for Scotland's young people cannot help but suffer as a consequence. I am informed that, for an average council, the cuts will mean £4 less per primary school pupil and £7 less per secondary school pupil to spend on books and equipment.
I had the honour of listening to the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, in this very establishment describing his absolute policy of providing a computer for every Israeli child. In Scotland, we cannot even provide our children with books, never mind computers. That is a massive irony for one of Europe's major computer-producing countries. The percentage of books given to our pupils in Scotland is one of the lowest in Europe. It is about time that we caught up with the 21st century, instead of trailing. Scotland's once proud record can be restored only if we give our pupils the very best in modern technology and an advantage when they start out in their school career.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was probably a slip of the tongue on the hon. Gentleman's part, but as I understood it, Mr. Peres said at the meeting that he wanted to provide "access to" a computer for every child.

Mr. Welsh: I am happy to stand corrected—he did indeed. But I think that his long-term ambition would also


be to match the two. I would be happy to see either in Scotland, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would share that ambition.
The cuts that the Government have forced on local authorities will mean between £100,000 and £200,000 taken from school maintenance budgets, larger classes, older equipment and reduced course choice. They will mean that services such as transport for school pupils will be cut to the statutory minimum and that special education needs provision will be cut, particularly on the residential side. During the debates on local government reorganisation, we were all worried about meeting the needs of children with specialist needs. The Minister must ensure that those needs are met, because those children are particularly vulnerable.
Language tuition will suffer, with the loss of foreign language assistants. They have always been a unique and special feature of the Scottish system. There will also be a reduction in exchanges—the opposite of Scotland in Europe. Scotland has always been internationalist-minded and had a connection with Europe, but we will find that language tuition will suffer because of the cuts.
As well as jobs being lost in teaching, there will be reductions in supply cover. At a time when greater and greater demands are being placed on the teaching profession, with the five-to-14 programme and "Higher Still", teachers face a reduction in the educational development service and service support. There will also be delays in the implementation of national guidelines—for example, for devolved school management. There will be a reduction in grants and subsidies to voluntary organisations and increases in charges for school meals, letting and music instruction. Schools operate not in a vacuum but within the wider community, and the cuts will affect the community and a school's relationship with it.
Charges for nursery education are being introduced, and thus, for the first time in Scotland, there is a retreat from the principle of free provision at the point of delivery. That is the situation to which the Government have brought us, and it is unacceptable.
A reduction in the community education service, including youth work and adult education provision, must follow from cuts. The closure of outdoor education and arts centres is threatened. For many people, community education is an access to the mainstream education system, and the access will simply be denied if that provision dries up or is limited.
There will be a reduction in support for key preventive education strategies—for example, in drugs, HIV and health education. That comes at a time when the Scottish Secretary is supposed to be spearheading a ministerial task force on drugs—his other policies are producing the opposite result. It is no wonder that 40,000 parents, teachers and pupils took to the streets of Edinburgh in protest. If that did not get through to the Minister, nothing will.
The general secretary of the biggest teaching trade union in Scotland, the Educational Institute of Scotland, Mr. Ronnie Smith, wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 November and 21 December 1995, seeking a meeting between the right hon. Gentleman and the EIS. It took nearly three months and the largest demonstration of its kind ever seen on the streets of Scotland's capital to evoke

a response from the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), and even then, it was only for him to offer his junior Minister. That says everything we need to know about the importance that the Government attach to Scottish education.
In each of Scotland's major cities, we can see where the axe is poised to fall. Glasgow estimates job losses, increased class sizes and reduced subject content. Glasgow's education department states that there will be
closure of schools on an unprecedented scale and within a time frame that is driven by budgetary constraint".
In Aberdeen, a £24.5 million shortfall exists between the cost of providing services to the city and the capping limit determined by the Scottish Office, which will result in a 10 per cent. cut in its base budget. Aberdeen council states that education will have to bear a significant share of the cuts—a minimum of 6 per cent., or £6 million, taken out of the system. It goes on to say:
redundancies and closures can be avoided in year one but given the reduction in compensation for the mismatch problem, additional burdens and the need to avoid a similar situation next year, significant rationalisation in 1997/98 is unavoidable.
It also says:
a number of council staff jobs have been lost equivalent to at least 10 FTE or £300,000 cost.
The council also points to a significant impact on the private sector resulting from reductions in buildings and maintenance contracts. Education also affects other businesses within the community that it serves.
In Edinburgh, £2.3 million will be taken out of the education budget in net terms—1.5 per cent. of the total education budget will be lost. Community education will be reduced by 5 per cent., with the threatened closure of the theatre arts centre and the drama centre. By the end of the year, 100 fewer teachers will be employed in Edinburgh, although again there will be no compulsory redundancies, thankfully.
In Dundee, the education budget will be cut by 5 per cent., with the closure of two secondary schools, four primary schools and a £1 million reduction in expenditure on property maintenance. Happily, there will be no compulsory redundancies, but there will be an overall reduction of 30 teaching posts in 1996–97, and a further reduction of 20 teaching posts in the next two years.
In addition to the damage being done because of the Minister's budget, the Government are creating a blight on curricular development. The funding crisis, allied to resentment by teachers because of their excessive work load, are badly affecting the five-to-14 programme and "Higher Still". Research shows little progress with the environmental, expressive arts and religious and moral educational elements of the five-to-14 programme. In secondary schools, there may now actually be a regression away from that programme towards the traditional secondary 1/secondary 2 curricula, with some implementation in English and mathematics, but little in other subject areas.
The five-to-14 programme is a curricular revolution, rather than a development of existing principles, which is not easily compatible with the existing secondary school approaches to S1/S2, or with the pattern of subject-based teaching at secondary schools. There can be no meaningful implementation in secondary schools until the new curricula are in place in primary schools. If the reform had been adequately resourced, the morale of


teachers was higher and there had been no funding crisis, the reform might have had a chance. In the absence of those conditions, I am told that the future of the five-to-14 programme looks bleak, and that "Higher Still" may well turn out to be an expensive paper reform that will never be implemented.
So far, the Government have made no commitment to the on-going and recurrent costs of implementing "Higher Still". I give them fair warning that, from my reading of the mood of teaching profession, unless new and adequate resources are forthcoming, teachers will refuse to implement "Higher Still", which is part of a long line of Government-imposed changes. I participated in some of them when I taught in a secondary school and when I worked in further education.
The system has had a series of changes, such as the raising of the school leaving age or the implementation of the modular system in further education. The changes were introduced and back-up resources were promised, but they took two, three, four or five years to arrive. In the meantime, education staff were left to cope. Cope they did, but they have reached the end of their tether. They are saying that it is not on for the same thing to happen with "Higher Still". I hope that the Minister is aware of the teachers' mood, and is going out among the schools, because that impression has been given to me strongly. Will he make it clear what extra resources the Government will make available for the changes? Unless there is an early change of direction, the new Scottish qualifications authority may end up presiding over two entirely different examination systems.
The Scottish education system has its own well understood fundamental principles that the Government are endangering with the imposition of alien ideas, unwanted by teachers or parents. There is a consensus across the whole of Scotland on common goals, ideas and educational philosophy, but the Government are not part of it. It is time they listened rather than dictating events to suit themselves.
The Government's proposed nursery voucher scheme will soon have to be debated. Concerns are being expressed in another place that that scheme is the thin end of the wedge.
How long will it be before the Government start to regard the market as a solution to the problem of educational provision instead of concentrating on the mainstream bulk of Scottish education? That is where improvements and changes should be made—to the national system that provides education for 98 per cent. of our children. Nursery and pre-school education should be a natural part of Scotland's national education system, with places available for all three or four-year-olds whose parents wish them to have pre-school education.
At the upper end of the scale, there is chronic underfunding of the Scotland's world-renowned higher education system. Scottish further and higher education has been suffering from a near 30 per cent. real terms reduction in unit funding over the past six years, culminating in 1995 with a 4.5 per cent. cut, in addition to a forecast overall cut in resources of some 10 per cent. That is all against the background of a 50 per cent. increase in student numbers since the late 1980s. The very success of further and higher education has been turned into a problem by the Government.
The higher education sector has reached a near 40 per cent. participation rate in Scotland—the Government's official target for the year 2000. Yet its reward has been projected further cuts of 10.2 per cent. in real terms by 1998–99, on top of the 28 per cent. cuts over the past six years. The Secretary of State is responsible for that situation. He may try to pass the buck over primary and secondary education to local authorities, but he cannot duck—there is no hiding place—his cuts on higher education.
Funding for individual institutions will be announced on 14 March, but the overall funding package is already known, and has caused widespread concern. Resources for 1996–97 have been cut. The Minister seems pained by that. He obviously does not know that resources have been cut by £7 million on top of the 3 per cent. efficiency savings, with reductions for future years of around 4 per cent. He might not know that, but the providers of education do, because they have to cope with it, as they have had to cope with the £6 million cut in last year's capital budget.
The effects of the Government's funding failures are already to be seen in deteriorating buildings, poor access to equipment, under-resourced libraries and overworked staff. One university reports that units of resource per student have declined by 30 per cent. in the past seven years. That is all happening in a service that is a major income earner for Scotland.
In 1993–94, Scottish universities attracted £536 million to Scotland from overseas students, through research income and in their role as employers and users of local services and businesses. Universities are major players in city economies. For every £100 they generate, they create an extra £79 of economic benefit elsewhere. For every 100 full-time equivalent jobs, they add 124 elsewhere. The Government's failure to invest in education is holding back Scotland's economy and creating unemployment, while their downright barbaric attitude to student grants is limiting access to universities for young Scots.
Scottish universities and colleges should be open to all with the ability to benefit from them, not rationed in the way that the Government have done. The Minister does not seem to know it, but an estimated capital investment of £700 million will be required over the next decade. I wonder whether he will say today whether that will be forthcoming. His policies so far have led us to the opposite conclusion.
Let us contrast the Government's failure and under-resourcing with the Scottish National party's detailed proposals, which allocate an additional £1.3 billion of resources to Scotland's local authorities in the first four years of an independent Scottish Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Where will it come from?

Mr. Welsh: The Minister need not ask where we will get it from. I will be happy to let him read our booklet. We are the only party that has detailed in pounds and pence where we will spend money. If he wants to find a party that runs away from spending commitments, he need only look across to the Labour Front Bench. The SNP has clearly shown where the money will come from.
The £8 billion deficit is a figment of the Minister's imagination. The real tartan tax is the subsidy from Scotland to England. The Minister may not know it, but


I advise him to read the Government's own figures, which show that, in the worst scenario, Scotland, with 8.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, provides 9.3 per cent. of all UK taxation. The real tartan tax is the subsidy of £10 per taxpayer per week from Scotland to the London Treasury.
In return, we get the Minister's pocket money. He cannot fund Scotland's education or local authorities, because he is getting a fixed, pocket money budget from the Treasury. His policies are Treasury-dominated. The £8.8 billion deficit exists only in his mind. All he can do is to play down his country and pretend that we are not one of the richest oil-producing countries in the world.
Why, with 7.5 billion tonnes of oil and gas reserves in Scottish territorial waters, is such a country talking about cuts, closures and unemployment? Instead of the problems of poverty that the Minister's pocket money budget imposes on us, Scotland should be dealing with the problems of prosperity. We have the resources, but we can exploit them only through independence. He offers us only the dependency culture—the begging bowl—approach of Unionism. That is the past; Scotland's future, as the people are deciding, is with independence and a Scottish Parliament, so that resources can be used for the things that we want in Scotland.
Our costed budget, in the first four years of a Scots Parliament, would provide more teachers, refurbish schools, and ensure nursery places in the national school system for every three or four-year-old whose parents wish it. With independence, Scotland's further and higher education institutions would meet the strategic needs of the nation and supply the highest-quality educational provision to the wider world.
The system is fundamentally strong, and based on deep-rooted Scottish values. Given the resourcing and priority it requires, Scotland's education system will once again be the envy of the world. That, and nothing less, should be our goal.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this important debate. I was a little worried earlier that not many hon. Members would attend the debate, but it is better attended than the debate last Wednesday morning on education in England. I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), whom many of us regard more as a housing than as an education spokesman, if he will forgive me for saying so.
I am pleased also to see a full complement of hon. Members from the Scottish National party. There are only four of them at present, and I suspect that there will be fewer still after the next general election. I wish my very good friend John Godfrey, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Perth, the best of luck. Opposition Members will be pleased to know that, while I am more than capable of making a long speech about Scottish education, I shall not do so, as a number of hon. Members are present and they wish to make their own contributions.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye also, Madam Deputy Speaker.
At a time when the interests of our economy are best served by reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and our overall level of public expenditure, the Government have set out their priorities in both education and health. Despite the fact that the PSBR fell from £35.9 billion to £29 billion this year, spending on education and health are priorities—particularly higher education—in Scotland, where spending will be £621 million in 1995–96, which is an increase of 4.2 per cent. on last year. In the December public expenditure survey statement, the Scottish Office education budget was maintained at a record level of £1,277 million.
However, Conservative Members are not convinced that only increased expenditure will radically improve standards in Scottish education. The education reforms that we have implemented throughout the United Kingdom are founded on our belief in devolving management of schools from Government to the schools, on parental involvement and on traditional teaching methods of instructing children in the subjects set out in the national curriculum. Teaching methods are particularly important, and the Office for Standards in Education has made it clear that their selection and application and the form of class organisation have a greater impact on learning than class sizes.
I welcome the fact that, from 1 April, bad teachers who are sacked by local education authorities will not have their dismissals referred to local education committees. We will abolish that long-winded, time-wasting procedure which makes it almost impossible to get rid of bad teachers.

Mr. Welsh: It is quite insulting to the Scottish education profession for the hon. Gentleman to talk about bad teachers in that manner. Does he not understand that one of our traditional strengths is a fully qualified, graduate teaching profession? If teachers have problems, they can be solved within the counselling system. They can receive the help they require in order to perform better, or they may decide to change careers. It is wrong merely to blame bad teachers or bad schools. Instead of moaning about teachers, the Government should fix the problems.

Mr. Banks: I am talking about a tiny minority of teachers. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the remarks of the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) which appeared in The Scotsman earlier this week—perhaps she will expand on them later in the debate. It appears that the Labour party is coming closer to the Government's policies: I welcome the fact that it seems to support some of the actions of Scottish Office Ministers.
The 1981 parents charter began the process of parental involvement, which has progressed through its 1991 and 1995 follow-ups. School boards were created in 1988, and they have given parents a role in running schools. They have now been established in more than 90 per cent. of Scottish secondary schools. The implications for local authorities of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Education Act 1993 were to extend choice to parents, governors and head teachers, centralise control of the curriculum and pass control of school inspections to Ofsted.
I shall point out how those changes advantage Scotland. Devolved management has encouraged flexibility and responsiveness by allowing decisions to be taken closer


to the Scottish people. Decisions are taken not just in the House and in London, but by local authorities. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I hope that those hon. Members who are engaging in repeated seated interventions do not hope to catch my eye to speak later in the debate.

Mr. Banks: That is true devolution: powers have been granted to parents without the need to establish alternative institutions and bureaucracy either here or in Edinburgh. Because there are no jobs, titles or sinecures for Opposition Members, it does not mean that their constituents will not benefit from the Government's policies. One has only to look at the success of Dornoch academy in Sutherland and its welcome expansion to six-year status to see the beneficial effects of schools governing themselves.
The Government's objectives—including the devolution to schools of at least 80 per cent. of local spending and schools having the controlling interest in staff selection—should be contrasted with the outdated paternalism of the Labour party. The introduction of nursery vouchers by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is widely welcomed.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: By whom?

Mr. Banks: It is welcomed by parents, but I shall come to that point in a moment—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will comment on it also.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: If I had plenty of time, I would love to give way to the hon. Lady. However, I promised the House that my remarks would be brief—it must be obvious to hon. Members that I am speaking more quickly than I would like. However, they should take care, because I could speak for much longer than they might wish.
I am pleased that the assisted places scheme will deliver further choice to parents. I emphasise that it has come about as a result of direct expenditure by the Scottish Office. I hope that the number of pupils taking advantage of the assisted places scheme will increase from 3,000 to 6,000. We want to give parents greater choice.
I commend the Scottish authorities that have taken part in the initial nursery voucher schemes. I wish those parents in North Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Argyll and Bute, and Highland the best of luck. I hope that vouchers valued at £1,100 or more will be made available to parents throughout Scotland, rather than in only a few authorities. I warmly welcome that measure, which gives parents unprecedented choice.
Unfortunately, education has been caught up in the uproar surrounding the reorganisation of local government. The hon. Member for Angus, East touched on that point, although I did not agree with everything he said—in fact, I think that, in Kilmarnock, he ran foul of the problems to which he alluded.
It is interesting to note that an extra £186 million has been allocated to Scottish councils this year. Current expenditure levels are more than 30 per cent. higher in

Scotland than in England, yet we hear claims about the denigration of Scottish local democracy by central Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on Monday of an extra £96 million for local authorities—including £58 million to safeguard front-line services, such as education—is motivated more by the need to help the oppressed council tax payer than by a desire to feed local authorities' addiction to more central funding.
The spendthrift behaviour of many of the outgoing regional and district authorities resembles that of a national lottery winner with only a few weeks to live. The new unitary authorities will suffer the consequences. Local reorganisation has been used by extremists—epitomised by one or two Opposition Members—simply as an excuse to make mischief. The Scottish National party's high-tax, high-spending agenda for Scotland is matched in its lunacy only by the foolishness of the Labour party, which sniggers in the background at the antics of the nationalists.
The hon. Member for Angus, East waved around a document containing many figures about where his party intends to spend money. However, he did not answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about where the money would come from. Conservative education policies make a rounded whole. The five-to-14 development programme, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, includes the three interlinked elements of the curriculum, testing and reporting on progress to parents. The five main areas of study seem to have struck the right balance between learning the basics and learning new subjects relevant to the future, such as environmental studies.
The aim of our recent legislation has been to make schools more responsive and accountable to individual choice, and to involve employers and the wider community. It is well known that education in Scotland—as in the rest of the United Kingdom—has been too distant from the needs of industry. The technical and vocational education initiative—which I think was pioneered by the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—is a fine programme, as is the compacts initiative. I warmly welcome the initiatives, which give students who perform well in Scotland a greater chance of a job when they leave school.
The latest reports of educational standards are encouraging. In November 1995 there was an increase in the proportion of pupils achieving three or more standard grade awards in the fourth year, and the proportion of pupils gaining five or more awards at the top level increased by 4 per cent. Participation of young Scots in higher education was more than 38 per cent. last year, compared with 17 per cent. under Labour.
I hope that the new local authorities that come into force on 1 April will be able to consult parents who are concerned about the future rationalisation of school places following the Accounts Commission for Scotland's identification of some 300,000 surplus school places. While I accept that that figure must be qualified by geographical and other considerations, there is still room for substantial improvement.

Mr. Phil Gallie: My hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable outcry from local authorities in


Scotland that claim that they are under-funded. Is it not the case that in Scotland, particularly in the Strathclyde region and in Glasgow, Labour councillors have failed to come to grips with the problems of too many schools not being maintained well enough?

Mr. Banks: I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place. He has raised an important point, and he will recognise that it is a matter for local councils and the geographical factors to which I have alluded.
I will devote as much attention to the policies of the Scottish National party as I think is due. I am conscious of the fact that, in 1989, it wasted time during the Budget to draw attention to the fact that more power was being devolved to parents north of the border. If ever there was an example of the Scottish National party being against choice, that was it. It has a long history of trying to scupper the Government's policies of devolving more power to parents and to schools.
I have no doubt that new Labour will continue to adopt many of the policies of the Conservative party, as it appears to be doing already—it is beginning to show the courage of our old convictions. However, it can never adopt our core beliefs, because choice and the minimisation of bureaucracy are not part of the socialist gospel or of the new Labour soundbite.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: This is good.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that it is good, because I could spend the next half hour or so going into much more detail.
Samuel Johnson is quoted as follows in Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson of 1775:
All knowledge is of itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would not rather know it than not.
Obviously, he could never have anticipated knowing Labour party education policy.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) spoke for such a long time but said so little.
My constituency has an exceptional quality of education, and the following secondary schools are at the top of the list of achievement by any standards throughout Scotland: Turbull high, Bishopbriggs high, Tuos Muir high, Lenzie academy, St. Ninians, Kirkintilloch high, Boclair and Bearsden academy. It was expected that these top schools would opt out under the Government's education reforms in the last Parliament, but not one of the schools in my constituency has expressed an interest in doing so.
The staff and the parents are content with the services provided by Strathclyde regional council—a Labour council. They have continued in that compact between the schools, the parents and the society in which they live, which is the basis on which good-quality education is delivered.
We cannot separate schools from society—when we were at school, there was a compact between school and society, and that was the basis of good education. It was

understood that, if one went to school, worked hard and obtained qualifications, one could move on to higher education and achieve a job. That process has broken down under the Government, and that compact has been split—and there is no doubt that there are falling standards and an increase in truancy as a result of the breakdown in society.
The schools in my constituency are full: there are no spare places and there are no spare schools. Under the local authority settlement, savings are supposed to be made within the education budget based on the assumption that there will be empty schools that can be closed. That cannot be done in my constituency: every school is completely full. However, we are asked to make the same cuts as other areas.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to consider that point. It is no good there being an average, because some areas will be above it and some areas will be below it—and it poses particular problems in my area. We do not have spare places, and we have placement requests because of the quality of the education in the area.

Mr. Gallie: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because other hon. Members wish to speak.
We have good-quality schooling for pupils with learning difficulties. However, pupils with special educational needs have to go outside the area—they are no longer part of the Strathclyde system—which is causing problems. The number of places available for pupils with specific learning disorders is inadequate, so they will be wrongly placed in other schools, to the detriment of their education.
I plead with the Minister to listen to local authorities and to look at the provision of facilities for children with specific learning needs. These children have a bad start to life as it is, so it is our duty to ensure that we do everything in our power to deliver a better service. There is much else that I wish to say, but if I have got through to the Minister the need for extra places for those with learning difficulties and other specific learning needs, I will have done some good in this debate.

Mr. James Wallace: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on succeeding in obtaining this debate and on the way in which he presented his case. Although I do not agree with everything he said, particularly in the latter part of his speech, he presented a broad canvas of the serious problems and difficulties currently facing Scottish education.
The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) referred to children with special needs. The nursery voucher scheme makes no provision for them. It is arguable whether £1,100 would pay for a nursery place for a child without special needs. We have heard little to date to give us any reassurance about provision for children with special educational needs, although Ministers have had plenty of opportunities to debate the issue.
Although such councils as Highland, and Argyll and Bute, which offer precious little nursery provision, may well gain from the nursery vouchers scheme, nursery


provision is inconsistent across Scotland. Western Isles provides no nursery education, while the cities and Grampian offer high provision of nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
Will the commitment to nursery education for four-year-olds affect education authorities that currently provide nursery education for three-year-olds? Will their nursery provision be compromised to ensure that sufficient resources are available for four-year-olds? What will happen to parents who are given vouchers but are unable to cash them in because of the lack of provision? I have heard nothing so far to satisfy my hon. Friends or myself that there will be sufficient resources in the system to train the exceptionally large number of teachers that will be required to deliver nursery education—

Mr. Don Foster: Or capital.

Mr. Wallace: Indeed.
When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in Stirling, his reply was frightening. He suggested that having properly trained teachers was perhaps aspiring to the ideal. It is far from ideal; I hope that it will be the reality: otherwise, the Government's proposals are for nursery education on the cheap.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate in Stirling. He may remember that I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he had previously advocated vouchers not just for nursery education, but for primary, secondary and tertiary education, and received an evasive answer. Will he join me in asking the Minister for clarification as to whether that was previously the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

Mr. Wallace: I certainly remember the question and the vague answer. I do not know whether that was the case in the past. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us with that. However, we would welcome some assurance that it is not the Government's policy.
In primary and secondary schools, there is a crisis in the provision of books and equipment. We have a backlog of repairs and maintenance to Scottish school buildings amounting to some £450 million. As the Scottish Office could not give me the figures, I wrote to every education authority in Scotland in spring 1994. When I wrote to them again last summer, the figure had risen to £500 million. It is still increasing, and nothing in the most recent local government settlement suggests that it will be tackled.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) mentioned the five-to-14 curriculum development. Although there has been progress in maths and English in our primary schools, there is some concern about curriculum development in environmental studies, expressive arts and religious and moral education. One cannot help thinking that the financial pressure on many new local authorities will put further constraints on much-needed progress in those matters.
In secondary 1 and secondary 2, implementation of the five-to-14 curriculum has not been as far reaching as everyone had hoped. Perhaps it would be useful if the Minister could let us know what research has been conducted and what assistance or encouragement is being given to developing the five-to-14 curriculum in the first two years of secondary education.
The hon. Member for Angus, East also mentioned the question marks over "Higher Still". The Government have made no commitment to the on-going and recurring costs of implementing "Higher Still". Will the Minister say whether the timetable is current and what further assistance will be given in regard to course preparation and the pressure on staff who have to deliver a new curriculum?
Higher education has suffered a 30 per cent. real terms reduction in unit funding over the past six years, with a further 4.5 per cent. cut promised for next year. Everyone welcomes the growth in student numbers, but no account has been taken of the consequences. Lecture theatres are overflowing, and science students do not have sufficient laboratory space. For students, timeshare means how long they are allowed to sit in the library and read, because books are in such demand.
The concern about funding that has been expressed by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals should not be overlooked by the committee of inquiry into higher education in the United Kingdom under Sir Ron Dearing. Professor Graham Davies, the principal of Glasgow university, highlighted the concern that up to 6,000 jobs could be lost—not only directly in higher education but among the spin-off jobs that relate to higher education—as a result of Government cuts, so there is clearly a problem.
There has been a deafening silence from the Government in response to the alarm bells that have been rung by the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals and the Association of University Teachers. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to respond to those alarming concerns. Perhaps he will also say how Sir Ron Dearing's committee of inquiry will cater for the Scottish dimension.
When I read the press reports, it was reassuring to note that the Secretary of State for Scotland recognised that there was a Scottish dimension to higher education, but his comments had all the hallmarks of the committee of inquiry being set up and then someone realising that Scotland had to be fitted in somewhere and the Secretary of State running around at the last minute to see what he could cobble together.
The problems are now overlaid by the financial crisis in local government. When 40,000 people took to the streets of Edinburgh, they were not protesting against Edinburgh district council or the new Edinburgh unitary authority, as the Minister sought to claim in a BBC interview.
The photograph on the back page of last week's edition of The Orcadian shows the Orkney EIS banner in Princes street. I do not believe that teachers from Orkney were protesting against the policies of Edinburgh city council. [Interruption.] The Minister may have some doubts about that, but it is quite clear that the people of Scotland were speaking out. It was similar to the protest in England and Wales last year, which left the Conservative party in third place in terms of the number of elected councillors. I am sure that the Government are relieved that there are no local authority elections in Scotland this year.
The Minister and the Secretary of State talk about the additional local authority expenditure per head in Scotland compared with England and Wales, but that does not take into account the fact that there are substantially more schoolchildren in the Scottish local authority sector. It also prompts the question whether Ministers want higher standards to be maintained.
Despite the crisis and the difficulties that we have discussed today, good-quality education continues to be delivered in Scottish schools. Of course there will be the odd bad teacher or even the odd bad school—although no one has named one—but there is no evidence that the poor teaching mentioned in reports on schools south of the border exists north of the border. League tables have their limitations, but they show that good-quality education is being delivered in Scotland. There is concern that standards might come under pressure through the funding cuts that are being forced on local authorities.
In conclusion, my party has made it clear that education must be our first priority. It is essential that we have a well-educated and well-trained young population to ensure our future competitiveness. We have stated that we would be prepared to spend the equivalent of 1p on income tax on education funding, and that if that had not been achieved in the United Kingdom, we would be prepared to support it in a Scottish Parliament.
The Minister points to a difference of view between the Labour party and ourselves, but we shall put our respective case to the Scottish people. The tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament are a matter of democracy. As the hon. Member for Angus, East said, the Scottish people have a firm and long-standing commitment to the education system. I am confident that, when we go to the Scottish people with our policies and our commitment to education, having been prepared to say how it will be funded, we will get a resounding vote from the people of Scotland.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I shall be brief, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. We will be interested to hear the response of the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland. Hon. Members have made valuable points in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh), as our parliamentary spokesperson on education, on having secured it.
I suspect that I am not the only hon. Member who has received a substantial amount of mail from constituents—I have also, in the past few weeks, met representatives in my surgery—about the prospects for our education system. I do not think that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) really understands the financial crisis that is affecting our local councils, which are responsible for delivering this vital service. All hon. Members should share the concern that has been expressed in the past few weeks as our councils have been going through the process of setting their budgets.
Moray council, like other councils, has been asked to make substantial cuts in its service. In our case, for a population of about 70,000 people, we have been asked to cut £7.8 million. Despite everything that the Secretary of State told the Scottish Grand Committee in Kilmarnock, there has not been one iota of change for many councils, because the transfer of some of the money to which the hon. Member for Southport referred had already been made by many councils, including mine. No additional money will therefore be given to those councils.
The education budget for Moray council was faxed to me yesterday, at my request, by the newly appointed director of education. In a small area such as Moray, the

required staff reduction will, I hope, result from voluntary severance. The reality is that we will lose 19 teaching posts and three to four of our specialist music instructors, who are a vital part of the Moray community. Other issues that have been highlighted are the loss of specialist language teaching and the reduction in special educational needs, which are front-line services that are vital to our education system.
In that context, I should like to put these questions to the Minister about education budgeting. The Secretary of State has claimed to have protected education in his financial statements. In Moray, we have kept above the grant-aided expenditure level, by only 0.5 per cent., yet we are facing cuts like every other authority, including the loss of those vital teaching posts. Any further cuts in education next year will have a very severe impact on front-line services, which will entail going below GAE, and schools will certainly be forced to opt out.
Is that the political agenda that has been set by Scottish Office Ministers? Are they determined to force our schools to opt out of our state education system, of which we are justifiably proud?
In the light of the cuts' impact, will the Secretary of State explain how the agenda and the timetable for new national developments can be fulfilled unless the Government deliver additional resources to our authorities? I should like to have very straight answers to those questions, and no obfuscation.
I should briefly like to examine higher education. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has already told us what the Association of University Teachers said about university funding, and I will therefore not rehearse that argument but only endorse it. Let us talk about funding our students in the further and higher education sector.
All hon. Members must be well aware of the difficulties that people of all ages who wish to enter further or higher education face in ensuring that they have a decent standard of living while undertaking their course. They do not want to be millionaires; they merely want to keep body and soul together. That is particularly true of mature students, many of whom are women, who want to enter the education system after their families have been raised.
I have written to the Scottish Office, time after time, about individual cases. The response has been, "Tell the person to go and look through the register of trusts. Find a sponsor." There is no evidence that Scottish Office Ministers believe that people should be entitled to reasonable funding during their education. Last month, I took up the issue of student funding, Student Loans Company funding and the fact that new financial institutions will be involved, with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). He said in his letter to me:
The financial institutions will offer loans on terms which are at least as good as those currently offered by the SLC.
Anyone one who has talked to a student knows that the loans offered by the SLC are inappropriate to students' needs. He went on to say:
It is true that the private lenders will be able to choose their customers, but there is no reason to believe that they will indulge in 'cherry-picking'.
I will say only that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that there will be a great deal of cherry-picking by those private organisations.
My final point is about the prospect of the development of a university of the highlands and islands. I understand that meetings have taken place with Sir Graham Hills and with the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, and that the director of the highlands and islands project has met representatives of colleges throughout the highlands and islands for preliminary discussions.
Will the Minister ensure that the results of those discussions are made public to all hon. Members who are very interested in the prospect of a university of the highlands and islands, which would create jobs, build on the expertise of our existing colleges and be a great boost to the area's economy?

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on his success in the raffle for this debate, and on his speech. I cannot say the same for the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). It is a measure of the Government's attitude to education that the one Conservative Member who could be persuaded to attend throughout this debate and to speak in it has not done his homework. I counted at least three errors of fact about Scottish education before he was many minutes into his speech.
I should like to concentrate my remarks on a few points about under-fives, because, a few weeks ago, when we had our debate on under-fives in Stirling, we were told that it would be quite appropriate to use village halls to accommodate under-fives. Why should young children be the only people in society who are so disregarded that they are expected to make do with accommodation in which everything is locked away at night, and which has no outdoor play space? That illustrates the Government's attitude to the education of ordinary people.
Once again, we have been told that local government schools are having great difficulties because of their incompetence and squandering of money. Only this morning, we heard about the Ministry of Defence losing or having had stolen millions of pounds' worth of pictures. I wonder if the hon. Member for Southport—who, I believe, went to Sandhurst—will join me in telling the MOD that it will get more money when it finds those pictures.
I was recently a member of the Committee that debated the Education (Student Loans) Bill, and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), told us—believe it or not—that students are not poor, that the citizens advice bureaux' survey of students in Scotland was profoundly in error because students were not poor, and that they could not be poor because he had met them in student beer bars. That was the level of his interest in and knowledge of students in further and higher education.
I once again want to pursue the issue of proper funding for students in further and higher education. We must have a system that ensures that students are not deterred from entering further and higher education on financial grounds—they are clearly being deterred at present. They are, in fact, leaving further and higher education in numbers that the Minister would not admit. He simply refuses to recognise that any student would leave education on the grounds of not being able to carry on financially, yet all hon. Members know from constituency experience that that happens.
I have only a few minutes left, but I want to ask the Under-Secretary about the student loans scheme. It has been deferred for a year because the Government could not

get the banks to co-operate on the time scale at first envisaged. Is it not the case that not one bank in Scotland was willing to join the scheme, because they all expected it to be highly unpopular with students, many of whom will enter highly paid jobs and possibly be useful customers? How many Scottish banks offered to join the scheme? If any did so, will the Minister give us their names?

Mrs. Helen Liddell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing this debate on an extremely topical subject. The Labour party recognises the very real concern about Scottish education, which led to 40,000 people taking to the streets in Edinburgh a couple of weeks ago. Only one sneering voice was raised against that demonstration—that of the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson).
I shall take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Angus, East and agree with almost everything that he said. There have now been five years of Government attacks on Scottish education. We have to contend not only with spending cuts but with the impact of local government reorganisation. We now see coming to fruition everything that my hon. Friends predicted during the Committee stage of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. The Government were warned by parents, teachers, the Churches and others of the chaos that would be brought to Scottish local government as a consequence of their untimely and ill-thought-out reorganisation.
It is significant that only one Conservative Member has spoken today—the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). I pay tribute to a distinguished war pensioner for having the nerve to confront the anger felt by Scottish Members about what is happening to Scottish education. It is disgraceful that the crib notes provided by his party misled him so badly. He said, for example, that there was universal support for nursery vouchers. Clearly the Government Whips failed to inform him that 84 per cent. of the people consulted about the scheme opposed it.
A number of hon. Members have spoken about pre-five education, and it is apposite that we should discuss it this week. On Monday, under the cover of moving from crisis to chaos in local government, the Secretary of State for Scotland again told us that the views of the Scottish people were to be ignored on the subject of nursery vouchers. He said that the pilot schemes, which any sane and rational person would have regarded as an opportunity to see whether the project would work, were not to go ahead. We have been told that nursery vouchers will be introduced, no matter what. That figures, with a Government who have consistently failed to listen.
The Government have been told by representatives of parents and teachers that nursery vouchers were not wanted in Scotland and that £1,100 was too little to guarantee a nursery place. They were also told that playgroups were inadequately funded to fill the gap, and that they too were opposed to the scheme—but they did not listen. The Government, true to their ideology, are hellbent on attacking Scottish state-funded education.
Is it not ironic that, as we gathered in the House last Wednesday to discuss the local government settlement and cuts, the Minister responsible for education issued a statement saying that the assisted places scheme was to be increased? That scheme is a direct subsidy to private schools, but funding for children at state schools is being attacked. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Nursery vouchers have been in circulation for two weeks in England, and the system has already descended into chaos. One third of eligible parents have not received their vouchers, because they did not know that, even if they had a child in nursery education, they had to apply for the vouchers. One needs to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand the system.
First, the child benefit agency sends out a form which parents have to send to a private management consultancy—Capita Management Services—based in London. The company sends details to Her Majesty's Stationery Office, which sends a printed voucher to the school, which then sends the voucher to the local education authority, which in turn sends it back to Capita. Capita sends it to the relevant Government Department, which sends the money to Capita, which sends the money to the local authority, which then sends it to the school. All that costs £290.
Head teachers in Edinburgh told me last Friday that their schools face cuts of £150 for every pupil, yet the Government can waste £290 on administration by a private management company which will destroy the structure of education for the pre-fives in Scotland.
Even more important, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred to the Scottish Grand Committee in Stirling, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). In that Committee, we stressed to the Secretary of State the need for professional pre-five education. We were told that there was to be a light-touch inspection approach. That is another sign of the downgrading of education. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the Secretary of State's relaxed attitude to providing teachers for nursery education.
I issue a challenge to the Minister responsible for education in Scotland, and hope that he will respond without his usual bluster. Schools in Scotland confront a serious problem because of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It is well known that a number of after-school schemes operate in Scotland to care for children after school hours and in the summer holidays. At the moment, a regulatory system is in operation to vet those people who look after the children. Because of a deregulation order on which there will be no vote, such vetting is to end.
Will the Minister guarantee that he will ensure that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 will be amended by way of a statutory instrument, so that children who could be extremely vulnerable will be protected? Otherwise, there will be a paedophiles charter in Scotland, and people who look after our most vulnerable children will not be vetted in any way. The Government say that they are ending the system because it involves unnecessary bureaucracy for private sector providers. I ask the Minister, who is a sensible man, to tell us today that that deregulation will not be applied in this instance in Scotland.
In the remaining few minutes, I shall deal with the problems facing higher education. Within the next week, institutions of higher education in Scotland, which are centres of excellence, will learn how the funding measures will shake down and affect them. We in Scotland are conscious of the fact that our higher education system is respected throughout the world. Its funding had already been cut.
I suggest that the hon. Member for Southport should have checked his facts, because the capital cuts affecting higher education in England were already affecting Scotland last year. We have experienced cut after cut. We are no longer cutting into the fat of higher education, but into the muscle. I am delighted to see that the Minister responsible for industry in Scotland, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is here, because our higher education is an important element of our ability to attract industrial inward investment.
Strathclyde university carried out significant research, which shows the multiplier affecting every higher education institution. Let me cite one example. One university, which employs 6,000 people, estimates that, through its multiplier, it employs a further 5,000 people in the community. If we damage the ability of higher education to operate properly, we limit its impact on the wider economy. That will affect not only people currently involved in higher education but future generations.
Those of us who have high ambitions for all Scotland's children want them to have the best possible opportunities in higher education, but the Government have let them down. We are rightly proud of our education system, but there have been successive attempts to anglicise and destroy it.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buffin—[Laughter.] I mean the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan; I apologise profusely to his constituents. He said that he had asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether nursery vouchers were to be the thin end of the wedge, and were to be introduced for primary and secondary education.
In July 1986, a certain Michael Forsyth, who described himself at that time as a former Westminster city councillor, contributed to a pamphlet called "Save Our Schools" by the No Turning Back group of Members of Parliament. Almost every proposal in that document, from opting out to vouchers, has been carried through. What is next? Are we to have vouchers for secondary education? Are we to have vouchers for primary education?
The Secretary of State for Scotland said in that document, which was written by him when he was proud of the fact that he was an ex-Westminster city councillor, that he believes that state schools should provide only the minimum education, and that parents should pay for the rest. Is that what the Under-Secretary—who has gone round Scotland to try to get schools to opt out, and who is so proud of the assisted places scheme—wants for the children of Scotland?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing it. I have listened with great interest to all the speeches, but I am disappointed that so many concentrated on resources in such a negative and misleading way.
Let me put the record straight. Resources allocated to school education have increased from less than £1 billion in 1979, when that crowd in the Labour party left office, to £2.5 billion now, a real terms increase of 15 per cent. So I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) and her party about funding of Scottish schools. Local authority spending per


pupil is 50 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979, and 25 per cent. higher in Scotland than in England. However, as the House knows, we have taken careful note of the real concerns that have been expressed by many councils, parents and those in the service about the impact on education.
We are glad to note that councils share the priority that we consider needs to be given to education. Councils should have the maximum flexibility to do that. Hon. Members heard earlier this week the positive response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to those concerns.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear to the Scottish Grand Committee in Kilmarnock that our wish is to give councils as much flexibility as possible in using their substantial resources to support front-line services, such as education.
The new arrangements that my right hon. Friend announced will give councils the scope to spend an extra £58 million on services, including education, and for the authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Angus, East that will involve an increase of £1.25 million. My right hon. Friend announced a package worth £38 million to protect council tax payers. That package means that the overall increase in Government support for local government is £186 million, £64.5 million more than the formula consequences of the English settlement.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Robertson: I have only eight minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman had half an hour at the beginning of the debate.
I am therefore proud to make it clear to hon. Members that, despite a tough public expenditure round, we have treated local government very fairly and have given especial priority to education. We look to local government to reflect that priority, and we are confident that it will. However, we remain firm in our view that efficiency savings can be found across the entirety of local government services. There is scope in education for that as well.
For example, the Accounts Commission reported that there are 300,000 surplus places in Scottish schools, and that rationalisation might yield annual savings of £25 million. The Accounts Commission helpfully set out suggestions on how rationalisation might be approached. It is a sensitive and difficult issue, but it is important that education authorities develop strategies to deal with falling and changing school rolls. Twenty-five million pounds is a prize worth grasping. It can and will make a difference.
But I do not want to go over that ground again. Let us look forward to what can be achieved. The Government have taken a positive lead to encourage the delivery of an effective and relevant education for everyone who wants to benefit. I ask hon. Members to look again at the improvement in exam results. There has been a clear increase in the proportion of standard grade presentations resulting in credit awards. More of our young people are qualifying for higher education than ever before. There is more choice and more opportunity.
Improving standards are welcome and impressive, but we should not be complacent. There is room for improvement, and I wish to draw the House's attention to two especial concerns. The first is testing.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I am not giving way. I have five minutes to respond to a debate that lasted for an hour and a half. The hon. Member for Angus, East took up half an hour, and I am trying to respond to some of the points in the debate. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am tired of seated interventions, from wherever they come.

Mr. Robertson: National testing, as hon. Members have said, is an integral part of the five-to-14 development programme. Rates for testing in primary schools are encouraging, but the position in secondary schools is completely unacceptable.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Angus, East, in talking about education, did not look at his education authority, which, in the last six months of last year, tested only 1 per cent. in maths in S1 and S2, 0 per cent. in reading and 0 per cent. in writing. I am therefore currently considering options for giving further impetus to testing in secondary schools, and I will report to the House later. The generally poor performance of secondary schools on testing must be—and will be—addressed if the wider benefits of the curriculum reforms are to be secured.
The new authorities will have an important role. They can grasp the opportunity to make real progress towards full implementation of five-to-14 and national testing in secondary schools, and to secure the benefits for the children involved. I have made it clear that we have a background of positive achievement, and the time is now right to move forward and to build.
I am certain that the vast majority of our schools do an excellent job, and children and parents are well served by them. But some schools are not achieving their full potential. That is the second area of concern that I wish to share with the House.
I do not just mean inner-city schools. Schools in other areas may not be getting the best out of their pupils, and are therefore letting them down. We should not brand those schools as failing, as some Opposition Members do, or think that teachers should be dismissed, as some Opposition Members do. We owe it to those schools, teachers, children and parents associated with them to help to find ways of raising performance.
I am therefore announcing today that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will set up a task force to address the issue of under-achievement. Its chairman and members will be announced in due course. The task force will identify strategies to achieve better teacher and pupil morale and the more effective use of resources in the education sector. It will build on the solid groundwork of achievement and rising standards that we have already laid. The specific remit of the task force is
To advise the Secretary of State on strategies to improve performance in primary and secondary schools which are under-achieving with a view to improving pupil achievement generally and also to securing greater value for money for the resources committed to school education.


The task force is a direct product of the work that we have already done in identifying performance measures for schools.
I am sure that it is necessary to look at under-achievement in its widest form. I do not want hon. Members to go away with the simple notion that under-achievement is about failure, either of pupils or of schools. Under-achievement implies that we are not meeting our full potential, and that can take many forms and there can be many reasons for it. There may be examples at all levels in the school system.
Among the fundamental issues that the task force will identify is the need to create positive attitudes to success, and eliminate the demoralising fear of failure from our approach to so many tasks. I am sure that there will be a role for everyone associated with the education system to help to take forward the products of the task force.
Many of the Government's initiatives in education and elsewhere have been directed towards giving people control—giving them a say. In education, we have led the way in recognising the rights and interests of parents—their rights to choose, their rights to better information, and their rights to participate. But not everybody sees it that way, least of all Opposition Members. From the cradle to the grave, they believe that big brother—in the form of central Government, the local authority or the education committee—always knows better than parents what is best for their children.
Sometimes, the Opposition's knee-jerk opposition degenerates into farce. Labour-controlled local authorities, which have been screaming blue murder over their budgets, have cavalierly turned down the extra money that was available for nursery vouchers. The hon. Member for Monklands, East, with no apparent sense of irony or of the absurdity of her remarks, asked me last November:
Have you no concern for the education and emotional development of the four-year-olds you intend using as political footballs?
I have never yet heard of a four-year-old who has been traumatised for life because his parents were able to flourish a voucher for £1,100—buckshee—to be spent on his or her education. The hon. Lady published a document that stated, "Every child is special", and so it is—but not special enough to deserve an assisted place, to give him or her the same start in life that the Leader of the Opposition had; not special enough to have his or her academic ability tested with a view to improving attainment; not special enough to get free nursery education of his or her parents' choice; and not special enough to have mixed-ability teaching examined, to see if that is the right way forward.
The hon. Lady's meaningless document is another high-wire balancing act between the cosmetic modernisers in her party and the stone age old believers. It will impress no one—not even the Educational Institute of Scotland, which said that the document was empty-headed and showed a paucity of thought. Only this Government's policies for genuine devolution of power to schools and parents offer the agenda of choice and individuality that will equip our young people for life.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Cyprus

11.am

Mr. John Marshall: I make no apology for again bringing the tragedy of Cyprus before the House. Although the issues facing Cyprus have not changed since 1974, the hurt that ordinary Cypriots feel has grown deeper. Over the past 21 and a half years, many tens of thousands of Cypriots have been able to see their homes but unable to live in them. Homes that might have been in their families for generations may now be uninhabited or, worse, inhabited by squatters sent there from Turkey.
The green line that divides the great city of Nicosia provides a contrast between the closed, but once prosperous, shops in the north—from which their proprietors have fled—and the modern, successful stores in Greek-Cypriot Nicosia.
The tragedy of Cyprus is a human tragedy. It is a tragedy of individuals displaced, and of whole generations of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who have known only Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The separation between the two communities is as cruel and effective as apartheid was in South Africa. Old friendships have died over the past 21 and a half years. Young Cypriots no longer mingle, Greek with Turk and Turk with Greek. No longer do they play together on the football field or drink coffee together in the cafes. The events of 1974 have led to an almost institutional division of that beautiful island, which has been treated cruelly by mankind.
It is necessary that the House should reiterate from time to time that the status quo in Cyprus is unacceptable and that Ministers and leading politicians throughout the world should remind the international community of that. It is wrong that Turkish and Greek Cypriots should mingle and be friends in London, Melbourne, Wood Green or Edmonton, but not in Nicosia or elsewhere in Cyprus.
There is in any debate about Cyprus a sense of déjà vu. Today's debates are similar to those of the late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. All that can be said is that the dramatis personae has changed. The fundamental problems remain the same. The island is divided when it should be united, and Nicosia is still divided when it should be a united city. However, those sentences fail to describe the dreadful suffering that some Cypriots have undergone. If a home has been in the family for generations, and if generation after generation of the family has lived in the same village, it is a cruel blow if, suddenly and by force of arms, one has to leave quickly knowing that it will not be possible to return for many years—as happened in 1974.
In 1979, I met a Greek Cypriot in Nicosia who told me that, before his father left northern Cyprus, he said, "We must take the title deeds to our house, so that we can claim it when we come back." That did not do the father much good—he has since died. Tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots have died but been unable to be buried in the villages that were their home for generations; others have been unable to live in the homes of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents.
It is difficult to imagine such a situation in this country because Britain has not been a divided island since the Romans built Hadrian's wall. The closest analogy is if the River Thames were a mythical green line and people


could not cross Westminster bridge or Lambeth bridge—if we could look across at County hall but could not go there, or look across at St. Thomas's hospital but not visit patients there. That is what it is like in Nicosia for the refugees from Famagusta. At night, they can see the lights on in their former homes, and they know that Turkish Cypriots are living in the properties in which their parents and grandparents once lived.
Some 500 Greek Cypriots live in an enclave in northern Cyprus, but it has gradually shrunk. They decided to remain in their homes, but they do so with great difficulty—there are restrictions on their movements, they may spend only a limited time in southern Cyprus, and there are restrictions on their activities in northern Cyprus.
There is justifiable anger across the world that there is a large number of Turkish troops and settlers in northern Cyprus. Since 1974, many Turkish Cypriots have left northern Cyprus to be replaced by settlers. Why are the troops there? If the people of northern Cyprus are happy and so rejoice in their good fortune, surely there is no need for troops. The ratio of troops to local population is greater in northern Cyprus than it ever was in Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. That seems to indicate that the people of northern Cyprus are rather dissatisfied with their lot, and the people of the rest of Cyprus must wonder whether the troops are there to attack southern Cyprus one day.
One of the greatest tragedies since 1974 has been the uncertain fate of the missing people. Some husbands did not know what had happened to their wives, parents did not know what had happened to their children, and sisters did not know what had happened to their brothers. Many Cypriots have died since 1974 not knowing the fate of their loved ones. Last summer, I was in Trafalgar square with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). One touching aspect was that elderly people came to the demonstration with photographs of their loved ones as they had been in 1974, still not knowing what had happened to them.
We are now told by Mr. Denktash that 1,600 of those missing people were killed by Turkish troops in 1974. That bald announcement is not good enough. The relatives have a right to know how their loved ones were killed and where they are buried. They have the right to give their loved ones a proper funeral. We must be told who committed those atrocities and what will happen to them. Surely we have a right to know why the international community has been kept in ignorance for 21 and a half years about the fate of those people. It is a disgrace that, 21 and a half years later, anyone can say, "Yes, we killed them in 1974."
The Cypriot problem also has practical implications, because of the United Nations peacekeeping force. The United Nations is almost bankrupt due to the cost of peacekeeping and the fact that the United States is rather reluctant to pay its dues to it, but it is essential that the peacekeeping force stays in Cyprus as a means of averting bloodshed. Cyprus is one of the flashpoints between Greece and Turkey. Turkey is a valued member of NATO, and Greece, of course, is one of our valued partners in the European Union. We want to reduce the flashpoints between them. We want them to have a sense of amity rather than enmity.
Cyprus has wanted to be part of the European Union, to become closer to Europe, for a very long time. I remember from my visits in the 1970s that the Cypriots were saying, "We want to get closer to Europe. We are part of Europe. Our traditions and our heritage are European." The European Union has agreed to begin negotiations for Cyprus and Malta to join the European Union within six months of the end of the intergovernmental conference. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would be happy for the IGC to disappear quickly from the earth, as indeed would some other of my hon. Friends. The current timetable is that the IGC will end in mid-1997. That means that negotiations on joining the European Union should begin towards the end of 1997.
Some argue that the negotiations should start only if the Cyprus problem has been solved, but that is quite wrong. If we were to adopt that approach, we would be giving the Turks and Turkish Cypriots a veto on decisions to be taken by the legitimate Government of Cyprus. The timing of the decision would no longer be in the hands of the European Union, of the recognised Government of Cyprus or of the people of Cyprus; it would instead be given to an illegal regime that is recognised by no member of the European Union.
Would it accelerate a solution to the problem of Cyprus to say to Turkey, "Cyprus cannot join the European Union unless and until you agree to a settlement"? Of course it would not, because securing the accession of Cyprus to the European Union is scarcely high on the list of objectives of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. At worst, Turkey is hostile, and at best it is indifferent. It would therefore be crass in the extreme to give the Turkish Government any means of preventing Cyprus from joining the European Union. We in the European Union must encourage Cyprus's application and make it clear that it will go ahead, whatever the political situation in Cyprus. In the longer term, we know that Turkey also wants to join the European Union. We must make it clear to Turkey that it cannot join unless the Cyprus problem has been solved. I believe that a necessary precondition of Turkey's successful application would be a solution to the problem.
The logjam in Cyprus has lasted for a very long time. That is why I welcome the fact that Mr. Richard Holbrooke, who managed to bring peace—perhaps only a fleeting peace—to the former Yugoslavia said that 1996 will be the year of Cyprus. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is also committed to making progress on Cyprus. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will outline his thinking this morning. I know that the timing is complicated by the elections that are due to take place in northern Cyprus and in Cyprus in the middle of the year, but from June there will be a period during which we could hold successful negotiations before the presidential elections in southern Cyprus.
Cyprus is much like the problem of the middle east. There will be a successful conclusion only if we have a series of building blocks. When two communities have been apart for about 20 years, confidence will not suddenly be rebuilt overnight. That is why I am sad that the confidence-building measures proposed by the United Nations have so far failed to succeed. If we could get agreement on two issues—Varosha and the reopening of Nicosia international airport—in unison, we would be laying the foundations for future productive developments.
If Varosha were given back to its original owners, it would lead to a rebirth of tourism in northern Cyprus, to the rebuilding of hotels, the restoration of property rights and the rebirth of confidence. Where, in 1974, there were the best hotels in northern Cyprus, we now have the wrecks of buildings. What was once home to tens of thousands of tourists is now home to weeds and vermin.
Last summer, I was on holiday in Cyprus with my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Knowsley, South. We met former citizens of Famagusta and the mayor in exile of Famagusta, who were able to see their homes. At night, we could see the lights of Famagusta, but we could not see a light where Famagusta was. There was nothing. Total darkness reigned over that part of the island. The ghost town of Varosha should again become an inhabited city, which would help to bring confidence to Cyprus. During that meeting, the mayor in exile of Famagusta made it clear that the people yearned to return to Varosha and to their homes.
The confidence-building measures could be mutually beneficial. They would enable Greek Cypriots to regain assets and provide Turkish Cypriots with a boost to the economy of the north of the island and provide them with jobs. Most important, it would allow the fragile plant of confidence and mutual respect to grow again, and get rid of some of the enmity of the past 21 and a half years.
My message to the people of Cyprus is, "Never despair." Around the world in the past 15 years we have seen tremendous developments, none of which could have been forecast 15 years ago. No one would have forecast that the Berlin wall would disappear. How many people could have forecast the demise of communism? In the 1960s, Mr. Kruschev went around the world saying that communism would bury the west. In the 1990s, communism was buried by capitalism. Where communism once reigned, we now see democracy. Who would have believed in the 1980s that F. W. de Klerk or Nelson Mandela would be able to take part in the same democratic elections in South Africa and be part of the same democratic Government? Who would have believed 10 years ago that King Hussein would be willing and able to make peace with the state of Israel?
Those are some of the major international developments, all of which have taken place against the expectations of experts only a few years ago. The people of Cyprus must not despair. I have a final message for the leaders of both communities:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Mr. Edward O'Hara: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing the debate on Cyprus. There have been a number of debates on Cyprus in recent months, but there cannot be too many on this important subject, which we must never forget.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the demonstration in Trafalgar square that he, other colleagues and I, attended last year to mark the 21st anniversary of the 1974 invasion. Sadly, if we are realistic, we may anticipate the 22nd anniversary in July this year.
As that date approaches, time is vital in the search for a solution. I shall not weary the House by repeating what was said by the hon. Member for Hendon, South, as many other hon. Members wish to speak. Let me say, however, that I agree entirely with what he said about the tragedy of Varosha, and the importance of finding a solution in the short term in order to establish confidence in the communities. I also agree with what he said about the tragedy of the 1,619 missing people—a tragedy that confronts us graphically whenever we attend demonstrations calling for a solution. I agree also with what he said about the tragedy of the refugees who have been unable to return to their homes for nearly 22 years.
As I have said, time is vital, for a reason that I do not think was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. I refer to what is happening to the population in the occupied zone of northern Cyprus. Hon. Members will know of the Cuco report, produced for the Council of Europe, which demonstrated conclusively that there had been a massive programme of ethnic engineering in the occupied zone. It is possible that the immigrants who have been brought in from Turkey—the Epiki, as they are called—now outnumber the Turkish Cypriots who still live in northern Cyprus. Every day that passes separates the two communities more, and makes a solution more difficult. Those two communities will have to relearn the habit of living together peacefully, as the vast majority did before 1974.
Given the exigencies of time, however, I prefer not to look back, but to look forward optimistically. There are signs of movement everywhere in 1996, leading us to hope that it may prove to be the year of a solution to this tragic problem. President Clinton has appointed Richard Beattie as his special envoy, to devote urgent attention to the problem. Following his successful efforts to find a solution in Bosnia, Richard Holbrooke had planned to visit Cyprus, but was diverted by the crisis in the Aegean involving the island of Imia, when Greece and Turkey nearly went to war. That would have been a tragedy in itself, but at the same time the Turks landed about 40 fresh tanks at Famagusta, which gave us all cause for reflection and concern about the explosive possibilities that still exist in that part of the world.
The Irish Foreign Minister, Dick Spring, visited Cyprus and offered his empathy and experience to the search for a solution. On 19 January, the United Nations Secretary-General's special envoy. Gustave Feissel, proclaimed that there was no reason why progress should not be made quickly, and that the elements of a solution were well known. The hon. Member for Hendon, South alluded to those elements, not least when he mentioned the confidence-building measures that were the subject of the last round of talks.
The European Union is taking a renewed, reinvigorated interest in the problem. In connection with the progress of Cyprus towards full membership of the Union, Greece was supported by France and Germany in its proposal for the appointment of a European Union co-ordinator to monitor progress towards a solution. The United Kingdom Government opposed the idea, but I understand that that was because they feared that such a move might interfere with the initiatives taken by the United States Government. I gather that the United Kingdom has not ruled out the appointment of a co-ordinator; I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
The new Italian presidency of the European Union has also taken a close interest in the problem. Susanna Agnelli, Italy's Foreign Minister, has said that the EU cannot just sit back and follow United States initiatives; the problem of Cyprus is a European responsibility. The Italian presidency has therefore appointed a representative to monitor developments in Cyprus—Italy's former permanent representative in the European Union, Federico di Roberto.
Lord Finsberg, who in the past has not been noted for his advocacy of a solution to the Cyprus problem other than one based on the status quo, went to northern Cyprus recently. He visited the enclaved people in the Karpas peninsula—another tragic group mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South. He is quoted as saying:
I didn't expect to find at the end of the 20th century people having to endure the sort of restrictions placed on their lives that I found.
It is said that
He described as 'inhumane' the practice of banning visits from children over 16 years old to their parents and called the confiscation of Greek-Cypriot houses and property in the northern third of the island 'legalised theft'.
That constitutes a dramatic change of heart.
I was interested to read, on 27 February, an editorial entitled "Cypriot bitterness". According to The Times,
The divided island looks infertile for the Dayton process".
I was gratified to see The Times taking an interest in the problem, even if belatedly, but some misapprehensions in the editorial should be corrected. It referred to the Cyprus Government as
currently representing only the Greek side, although it is the only one to be recognised internationally".
That is half right, but half wrong. The Greek side is the only Government of Cyprus to be recognised internationally; the so-called republic of northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey. The editorial is wrong, however, to suggest that the Cyprus Government represent only the Greek side. They also represent the Turkish Cypriots. Hon. Members who fight for a solution always make it clear that they are supporting not just the interests of Greek Cypriots, but those of Turkish Cypriots and Cypriots of all other ethnic origins.
The Times was even more wrong in stating that there has been a
clear lack of political will
on both sides. In his report on the breakdown of the last round of negotiations, the Secretary-General of the United Nations said that the responsibility for the lack of progress lay clearly with Mr. Rauf Denktash, leader of the Turkish Cypriots, and with his intransigence over the years.
I question the suggestion of The Times that a Dayton procedure might be the appropriate way—although The Times is not optimistic about it—towards a solution of the Cyprus problem. The problem is complex and deeper-rooted than the Bosnia problem. I would be apprehensive about a quick fix through a Dayton process.
We can, however, be optimistic for these reasons. We can look forward to Cyprus's progress to full European Union membership. That is good news not just for Cyprus, but for Europe and the west. Cyprus is of enormous importance to the west. As it lies at the meeting point of three continents, it has geo-political importance—part of Cyprus's tragedy has been the importance of its

geo-political location over thousands of years. Cyprus has been the bone over which stronger world powers have frequently fought throughout history.
Cyprus is important militarily, again because of its geographical location. That is why we have our bases there and why the Americans preserve their presence there. Economically, Cyprus has much to offer the EU, as distinct from feeding off it. Cyprus's growth, averaging 4 to 6 per cent. per year, continues to outperform that of most EU members. Cyprus's per capita income averages $12,000 per annum and is one of the highest in the EU. Cyprus's economy has much to offer Europe, much as Europe has much to offer Cyprus.
We should look forward with optimism and purpose to a solution. I suggest—I am sure that many hon. Members would welcome this—that we should immediately look to demilitarisation. I mentioned the 40 extra tanks that landed at Famagusta. That is alarming. There is common criticism of the excessive weight of arms on both sides on such a small island. The occupying force is out of all proportion to any strategic need to protect northern Cyprus's population. More than 37,000, I think, troops are occupying northern Cyprus with supporting light and heavy armaments, including tanks.
I accept that the Cyprus Government are also spending heavily on armaments relative to Cyprus's size, but what are they to do when faced with the armaments that they see across the border? We should consider closely President Clerides's generous offer for an approach to Cyprus's demilitarisation whereby the Cyprus Government would pay the costs of taking interested forces in Cyprus out and replacing them with neutral forces. As the hon. Member for Hendon, South rightly pointed out, the costs of policing Cyprus with neutral forces are enormous and a burden on the UN. We should grasp that generous offer.
We should turn our attention to the management of a solution because, in my bones, I believe that a solution is coming. The management of the solution will present problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South that Varosha could be important in that. I frequently refer to Varosha as the test bed for demonstrating that a solution can work.
There will be tremendous problems of management. We should turn our attention to those and look forward to a future in Cyprus of prosperity for the whole island, where the two communities and the minority communities can live together in peaceful co-existence, as the majority did before 1974. Commonly, that is stated in the slogan:
One island, one people, one Government"—
albeit a federal Government, the likely solution—
one Cyprus.
I look forward to that.
With the permission of the House, I should like to quote a few lines of a Greek poem that I have often quoted in Cyprus and in this country. It sums up so much of Cyprus's importance to the Cypriots, to so many hon. Members and to humanity:

My translation is:
If I forget you Cyprus, I shall fail as a man, I shall be beggared, I shall be diminished, I shall wither.

Dr. Ian Twinn: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I should declare my interest in Cyprus. I was a paid-for visitor to the rallies at Morphou and Famagusta last summer. Sadly, they were held just outside those regions because they are occupied by Turkish troops. That is a graphic symbol of why hon. Members should take a close interest in what is going on in Cyprus. It is a blot on Europe and on the world that we allow an island to remain occupied and divided in such a way.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing yet another debate on Cyprus. It shows the interest that exists here and that we want to keep reminding the country, this Parliament and others around the world of the need to be positive about Cyprus.
Listening to the two speeches so far, I find it interesting that there is optimism. Despite what has happened in Cyprus, we remain optimistic that a solution is not only right but possible to achieve. That solution would be in the interests of all Cypriots—not just Greek Cypriots but Turkish and other Cypriots. Their prosperity and human rights are at stake and that is what we are discussing.
Britain has a particular interest in Cyprus. It is not just that we are the former colonial power—or one of a number of former colonial powers over the years—or that we have bases there that continue to be extremely useful to our defence needs, or that we have strong cultural links with Cyprus. Even a casual visitor to that lovely island must realise that people there drive on the same side of the road as us and that they speak English very well. Some businesses have joint branches in north London and in our constituencies in particular. Hon. Members speaking today are proud to represent many Cypriots who are London based, which is our gain, but Cyprus's loss in that Greek and Turkish Cypriots are not able to live at peace in their own homes there.
The reason why we have a moral duty to take a close interest in Cyprus is that, as Britain is a guarantor power, we have international obligations. Sadly, we have not always taken those as seriously as we should. The 1974 Turkish invasion remains a blot on British foreign policy. The Government of the time, a guarantor power, refused to join the other guarantor power in taking action against the Greek colonels, who had instituted a coup in the island and thrown out the legitimate president.
We had every right, indeed a moral duty, to be involved then. We did not act, and we have been fighting the consequences for the past 21 years. We in the House must recognise that fact, and it is right to return to it time and time again. I hope that we shall not be as weak-kneed again in the future, and will take our responsibilities seriously.
We left a legacy in Cyprus, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South has outlined in graphic detail the effect that it has had on Cypriots. There are refugees who cannot go back to their homes, and there is an army of occupation far larger than Turkey, as a guarantor power, could possibly argue that it needed to protect Turkish Cypriots, even if anyone seriously believed that such protection were needed. I fully accept that in 1974, with the Greek army there and a coup taking place, there was a need for international involvement in Cyprus, but I do not think that that justifies the presence of 30,000 or more troops and lots of heavy armaments on such a small island.
Today we have heard about the refugees, the occupation and the missing people. We have heard from Mr. Denktash the very late news—which, although interesting, is not surprising—that those people were killed in 1974 by Turkish Cypriot paramilitaries. Possibly that is what most people already knew in their hearts actually happened, but the committee in Cyprus investigating the missing people must consider with a little more urgency what happened to them and where the graves are.
The surviving relatives remain most concerned, and while there is even the slightest hope that the missing people may be alive, it is cruel not to allow their deaths to be finally underlined, so that proper remembrance services can be held. I hope that Mr. Denktash will carefully consider the implications of his words. Indeed, I hope that he is not too ill to do so, and will make a recovery from his heart attack, as I gather he is now doing in Turkey.
At the time of the invasion, and perhaps even before, what took place in Cyprus was ethnic cleansing. We have seen results of that continue in the Mediterranean area. None of us has anything to be proud of when we realise that we allowed that to happen.
There is another legacy of what happened in Cyprus—the actions of Turkey itself, which convey serious messages that we tend to forget. Yes, Turkey is important and we have to take account of it. It is a military ally of ours, and was extremely important to us during the cold war. It remains significant in the fight against the spread of fundamentalism in Islam. It cannot be in the interests of European civilisation to allow non-democratic fundamentalist terrorism to spread in our area, and Turkey stands as a bulwark against that. If it can continue to do so, that is something that we should all support with enthusiasm, and we must give Turkey all the help that we can.
Turkey's sheer presence is important in the region. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) talked about the geo-politics. Turkey is a large significant country with strong cultural links with Cyprus, but Cyprus is not and never has been part of Turkey. It was a Turkish colony until we took it over in the 19th century, when it became our colony. But Cyprus remains a separate country. When Turkey starts to say that it would like Cyprus to be part of Turkey, we should all fear for the consequences.
We do not want an expansionist Turkey in the region again. We have a duty to support that country as it is, but not as it, in its wilder fancies, may like to see itself, with an expanding empire. The United Kingdom and the European Union must stand firm against Turkey, while at the same time being supportive. I look at Cyprus and wonder what objectives Turkey can possibly have in carrying on as it does there. There can be only one conclusion: Turkey wants to dominate the island and still sees it as a part of its empire which, for cultural and other reasons, it would like to take back. We need to say that that is not acceptable.
The United Nations has made that plain, and in all its statements and successive motions, as well as in the activities of the Secretary-General, has underlined it time and time again; yet 21 years later we are in the same position as we were in 1974. There has been no significant progress, for the good reason that Turkish politicians and


some Turkish Cypriot leaders have not wanted there to be any progress. All the political good will, where there have been signs of progress, has come from the Greek Cypriot politicians and the Cyprus Government—but I hope that we shall now start to see a significant change.
I believe that the European Union offers the possibility that Cyprus could become united again, and have the guarantees of peace and freedom within their own country that all Cypriots want. Perhaps it was not appropriate for Greece, Turkey and Britain to be guarantor powers, but it would be appropriate, within the European Union, for the guarantees of freedom and justice to be offered by a wider international community. So I hope that we can make progress there.
I am grateful for the British Government's support for the UN. It has been noticeable that many of the initiatives have come about not only with Britain's tacit support but after a great deal of hard work by our Ministers and diplomats. One has only to observe the activities of the British high commissioner in Nicosia to appreciate what good work is done, and what confidence building between the two communities can be achieved by the positive actions of the British Government.
I hope that that will continue. We must do more than rely on the United Nations; we must work through the EU and use our own resources to promote justice within Cyprus rather than simply relying on what may be perceived as the foreign affairs interests of the United States.
We would probably all agree that nothing can be achieved in Cyprus unless the United States wants something to be achieved. After 21 and a half years, that may lead us to certain conclusions about the good will of American Administrations. I hope that there is now an opportunity for America to show a more positive attitude towards Cyprus, and a less sycophantic response to the military needs of Turkey. The United States elections are a jolly good time for candidates on both sides to make their positions clear, and I hope not only that they do that but that this time they carry out what they say after they have been elected.
We have talked about possible membership of the EU for Cyprus, with negotiations starting six months after the conclusion of the next intergovernmental conference—if it ever reaches any conclusions. I hope that we manage to get some sensible conclusions from the IGC, with which Conservative Members can agree. I see my hon. Friend the Minister of State laughing; he knows perfectly well what I would like to come out of the IGC. Immediately afterwards I would like to see Cyprus join the EU.
It is important for us to reaffirm the message that Cyprus will join, and that it should join as a federal state—one Cyprus, one sovereignty and one Government, albeit in a federal system with two parts. Turkey does not have the right to veto a political solution in Cyprus, and therefore veto its membership of the EU.
I have no illusions about how difficult it would be for the Government of Cyprus to enter the EU when one third of the island is still occupied, as that part could not functionally be part of the European Union. That would be incredibly difficult, but it must remain a possibility, if Turkey and Turkish Cypriots do not adopt a positive attitude and find a solution. I should like an affirmation from my hon. Friend today that that remains the bottom line, and could happen, however difficult it may be.
I also draw conclusions about Turkey over what has being going on in the Aegean. I am concerned that Turkey has sought to overturn a clear international agreement on the demarcation line between the Dodecanese islands and the Anatolian coast that was agreed in 1932. It was perfectly fairly agreed with Italy, transferred by Italy to Greece in 1947 and has been operated successfully ever since by Turkey and Greece. Turkey cannot use weasel words or find ways to slip out of it.
It is beholden on us to recognise that international agreement and the way in which it has been operating and say, "No, we will not be drawn into supporting Turkey in trying to widen an area of conflict." I suspect that Turkey is only trying to distract attention from its political problems at home. We should not become part of the dispute and I would like to hear the Government reaffirming their statement.
Like other hon. Members, I remain very positive about Cyprus despite everything that has happened over the past 20 or so years. It is possible to reach a successful conclusion. We need the good will of the Government and of the people of this country and Europe to do so. I hope that we all work together to achieve it.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am extremely proud to declare as an interest that I have a very large Cypriot community in my constituency. I have visited Cyprus on a number of occasions as a paid guest of the Morphou district association and the Morphou council in exile.
I am very pleased that we have the opportunity to debate Cyprus once again. It is extremely appropriate to continue the debate because, as hon. Members know, Cyprus is important to us not only as a member of the Commonwealth but because of the unique role that we play as its guarantor power—a guarantee of Cyprus's integrity.
It is difficult to speak in this debate without feeling emotionally committed to Cyprus and the history of the past 21 years. I remember very clearly where I was when Cyprus was invaded in 1974. I was a student and can remember the shock waves and the feeling of outrage that the invasion caused. When we look back, we ought to feel outraged that an invasion was allowed to take place and that that occupation—that is the only word for it—is continuing in Cyprus.
To very many people in this country, Cyprus is a beautiful island to visit. It has built a very successful tourism industry and many people from Britain visit that lovely place. They probably go for a couple of weeks' holiday, have a lovely time on the beaches and, one hopes, also see the sights and visit the villages, where people can still receive traditional hospitality.
Before people go—or even during their visit if they stick to the beaches—few realise the tragedy of the divided island and its divided capital. In, for example, the commercial, bustling, modern city of Nicosia, they might suddenly come to the end of a road where they are met by a wall, and the fact that they are in the middle of a division will really hit them. Encountering that division, represented by a physical wall, is a great shock to many people.
One of the reasons why Cyprus is not so high on the international agenda is that the Cypriot community have been so successful in building their economy and


absorbing their refugees. One does not see any refugee camps in Cyprus. Indeed, as a result, one can go to Cyprus and not fully appreciate what has happened. That is part of Cyprus's tragedy. Its problems are on the international list, but not as high on it as hon. Members want.
Hon. Members have graphically described how 40,000 Turkish troops—a foreign army—are occupying a country that is a member of the United Nations, a sovereign country, part of the Commonwealth, and for which we are a guarantor power. We have heard about the terrible plight of the enclaved people, the great majority of whom are elderly. Some, however, are extremely young and are harassed in their daily lives. We know that not only from people who are sympathetic to the Cypriot cause but from the United Nations.
There is also the tragedy of missing people, about which recent information is very welcome. Like other hon. Members, I have Cypriot constituents who do not know the fate of their relatives. I know that hon. Members have heard me say this before, but it is worth repeating. An elderly lady in my constituency does not know what has happened to her son. The only snippet of information that she has is a reference to his name on the BBC 9 o'clock news on the day the invasion occurred. Her son was a police officer—a young man serving his country and his community. One moment he was there, the next moment he disappeared out of sight. That lady is elderly and she deserves to know what has happened to her beloved son.
I referred earlier to visiting Cyprus. Sadly, I could not go to Morphou, although I could see it from a distance. The refugees may be absorbed in the new lives that they have created, but they can still see the villages and communities that they had so tragically to leave when they were invaded. Indeed, they can even smell their former orange groves while staging demonstrations.
Like other hon. Members, I remain optimistic, as we must. Cyprus's application to join the European Community is absolutely essential in resolving the problem. It is very important that the illegal regime of Mr. Denktash and the Turkish Government is not allowed a de facto veto on negotiations. I remain disturbed by the Prime Minister's comments on Cyprus's application. Cyprus fulfils the criteria of European Union membership in every possible way. It looks to Europe. Its successful, modern, vibrant economy is right for European Community membership. But Turkey and the illegal regime must not be allowed to have a veto on the accession.
A two-pronged strategy involving the EU and the United States is needed. Britain has a key role with respect to the United States because of our countries' special relationship, and we must work with the Americans and the EU to bring about a just solution. Britain could do much more with the Americans to make sure that the issue goes to the top of the international agenda.
I want to come back to the House to say that the situation in Cyprus has been resolved and that there is one Cyprus, and I want a debate in this very Chamber to celebrate the unification of Cyprus. I want Cyprus to take a proper part in the world and to display all the enthusiasm and energy that a united Cyprus could produce.

12 noon

Mr. Hartley Booth: During a debate on Cyprus last year, I explained that I was taking up the case of a particular missing person to whom reference has been made by hon. Members. I said that I would have a letter to Mr. Rauf Denktash translated into Turkish, and I did. I received a reply that asked for more information, and it may amuse the House to learn that the letter—which I took great difficulty to prepare—was treated by Mr. Denktash's office as though it were a standard letter. That office has obviously been bombarded by such letters over the years. I intend to continue my efforts and negotiations, and I am still in contact with Mr. Denktash's office. If there is a further debate on Cyprus this year, I shall give the House more information.
Those of us who are friends of Cyprus look now not to Mr. Denktash—whom we regard as a puppet—but to mainland Turkey. Greek Cypriots—indeed, all Cypriots—now see their future in the hands of mainland Turkey. Only when the 35,000 troops in northern Cyprus are withdrawn by the political will of Ankara shall we see a solution.
I hope that we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Minister that the British Government place a top priority on solving the problem, and they should focus their attention on two matters. First, no one should argue that the fact that the island is temporarily divided—it is only a temporary division—should be a barrier to EU membership for Cyprus. One thinks of the differences between Gibraltar and Spain, the residual claims of France to the channel islands, the well-known divisions in Belgium, the awful divisions in Germany, the divisions in Corsica and, of course, those in Northern Ireland. It seems as though there is almost a rule that a country needs division to be a part of the EU.
What would be a barrier to EU entry, however, is a failure to observe human rights, and that is the second point that I want the Government to focus on. For years, Europe told Franco that if Spain cleaned up its act, respected human rights and got rid of dictatorship, it could perhaps join the European Community. Democracy was introduced and human rights were respected in Spain thanks to the force of the EU. That is now also taking place in eastern Europe, and it could also happen in Cyprus.
I want to end my remarks here, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) has an important speech to make. I wanted to take part in the debate because Cyprus is so important, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to make four points about Cyprus. First, the status quo is not acceptable. It is easy to say that the situation is stable because there has been only one death on the green line in 22 years. Nevertheless, it is precisely the opposite. The recent tension between Greece and Turkey in Imia, and the fact that Cyprus is heavily militarised—and hence potentially explosive—and occupies an important part of the eastern Mediterranean between the Islamic and western worlds mean that the island of Cyprus is extremely important. Having a green line across the island separating two communities whose resentments for one another fester the longer the division goes on is therefore not sustainable.
Secondly, the approach adopted in the past 22 years—the UN overseeing intercommunal talks—has plainly been a failure. If one is to solve the Cyprus problem, although


one must leave the individual communities to discuss the basic substance, the strategic overview must be internationalised, as it was in Bosnia. Had there not been an intervention by the international community in Bosnia, we would not have got a successful solution there.
Thirdly, any such solution must now involve demilitarisation. We shall never build confidence between the two communities while enormous armies are facing each other across the green line and if one community—the Turkish Cypriot community—is effectively being deprived of its Cypriot character by the gradual process of annexation. The Turkish Government are practising almost racial apartheid in the area, as more settlers come in and more Turkish Cypriots leave.
Fourthly, the new opportunities presented by the accession of Cyprus to the EU must be grasped. The benefits of that might include the possibility of encouraging moderate opinion in the north side of Cyprus to speak in favour of a solution. That moderate opinion has been unable to express itself effectively in the past few years. We must also try to exercise through the EU some leverage over Turkey, which has not been prepared to accept the association agreement that it signed in December as a means of promoting a more rational approach to unity in Cyprus from Mr. Denktash. Any continuation of that association agreement, any further integration of Turkey into the EU and any benefits that the EU might have for Turkey must be made conditional on Turkey exercising effective pressure on the Turkish Cypriots to come to the negotiating table. The Turkish Cypriots must accept the agreement of the late 1970s that they now seem to have gone against, as Mr. Denktash talks about the sovereignty of northern Cyprus being recognised as a pre-condition of talks. That is obviously totally wrong. I look forward to hearing what the Front-Bench spokesmen have to say.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on bringing the issue to the House. The debate is crucial, as we must discharge a responsibility that in many respects rests here in Westminster with the Government. I must apologise to the House on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin), who has been detained in Europe on European business—the Minister is probably delighted to be so detained on some occasions, if not others—and is unable to join us for the debate this morning.
Every hon. Member has talked graphically of the personal stress caused by the division of the island of Cyprus. They are right to do so and all of us, either through constituency cases or, as in my case through personal contacts, can talk in exact terms about the personal loss, stress and bad memories that people will take with them for many years.
In his closing remarks, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) summed up well the important points that result from those divisions. First, there is a real danger of allowing the dispute and division to become institutionalised and the status quo to become normality for Cyprus. That imposes a responsibility on all of us to ensure that we are always trying to find a peaceful solution to the problem. If we allow the status quo to become institutionalised, two further risks are involved.
First, there is a substantial differential between living standards in the Turkish and Greek parts of the island, which will widen. We all know and understand the reasons for it, but it is unhealthy to have people with such wide differences in living standards living just a few miles from one another. In his opening comments, the hon. Member for Hendon, South referred to per capita income of $12,000 per year. The figure for the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus is never very accurate and is usually never available, but would not be anywhere near that. We therefore need to do something about the economic imbalance.
As several hon. Members said, we also need to do something about the fact that too much money is spent on arms and too many people are involved in what is potentially an armed conflict. We need to avoid that, to demilitarise and to de-escalate. By maintaining the status quo, we always run the risk of moving in the direction of such a conflict.
Everyone has referred to the 1,600 missing people. The hon. Member for Hendon, South was right to refer to Mr. Denktash's weekend announcement about them. It seemed remarkably cold and callous to make the announcement in that context and without giving the relatives any indication of what has happened to their loved ones or of where their bodies can be found. The statement did not seem likely to build up trust between the communities. I hope that at some stage soon, Mr. Denktash and his authority can use the opportunity to make the information readily available to the Cypriot community so that people know exactly what has happened to their relatives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) displayed a remarkable optimism in his speech. I welcome optimism—those of us who have been in Labour party politics for many years have that as an endearing characteristic and perhaps that optimism is desperately necessary in the context of Cyprus. My hon. Friend was right to point out that we need a twin-track approach to push the Cyprus peace process along. He was also right to say that the Americans have a crucial role to play. I welcome the fact that President Clinton, above all other American Presidents, has recognised that Cyprus is an important political issue and put it on the map. I hope that he will continue to do so throughout and beyond election year, if he is successful in gaining re-election.
Richard Holbrooke has become a key player and we need to look for a Dayton process, which is the way to make progress. I note that Holbrooke has talked of three important conditions. I agree with those, but would add a fourth. Holbrooke said, first, that the leaders must have the authority to negotiate. That means that we need strong leadership and leadership in which the communities have trust. Secondly, he said that there is a necessity to remain at the table indefinitely, until we reach a solution. Again, that is a question of commitment on the part of all those involved in the negotiations. Thirdly—something that is crucially important in the Cyprus context—we need to maintain confidentiality. Hitherto, there has been no great success in maintaining the confidentiality of the discussions.
I would add a fourth condition, which is that confidence building and demilitarisation, to which all hon. Members have referred, is of crucial importance. It is almost a pre-condition to getting the talks started. We need to build up trust between communities. Throughout the world,


wherever there are divisions between communities, whether on ethnic or religious grounds or a mixture of the two, the only way to make progress, flesh out and add spirit to the meat of such negotiations is through confidence-building measures in the various communities. That is an important part of the process. We wish the negotiations well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South is right to be optimistic. We have to do all we can to push the process along.
The other track is that of the European Union, and it is important for the EU to continue to emphasise its role and for Britain to emphasise its unique role as regards Cyprus and the responsibilities of the EU. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in that respect. We can and should give a lead on the issue.
I wish Cyprus well in its application for EU membership and it seems to meet most of the economic criteria. I think that it is in danger of being one of the few countries that would meet the Maastricht criteria—that may well be a mixed blessing for its economy in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said that EU membership is essential to Cyprus. That may well be so, but it is not an alternative to a long-term peace solution; it is an addition to a long-term peace settlement. Logically, we must always bear in mind the fact that it is important to see EU membership as an addition. The Opposition would certainly not give Turkey the right to veto such membership.
I know that the Minister has some important comments to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green ended her speech by saying that she looks forward to the day when we can have a debate in which we can look forward, not back—a debate that allows us to celebrate the fact that Cyprus is again united and that the communities can live together. We can all sketch out constitutional models for the way in which that could occur, but the important thing about that day is that it would mean that this House of Commons—This Westminster, whatever Government are in office at that stage—had discharged its responsibilities towards the people of Cyprus. I look forward to that and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South on playing his part in that process.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): I must also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on his consistent good fortune in the ballot for Adjournment debates. The House has rightly debated Cyprus many times, often in debates under his sponsorship.
We have heard many excellent speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House—the wisdom that we have come to expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn), the sharp clarity of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) and concise common sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth). I look forward to receiving a copy of the poem from the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). I also welcome—this may seem unusual, but in this context I think that it is right—the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) if not to his baptism of fire, to his maiden speech on the subject. He showed great common sense.
As other hon. Members have had so much to say, I shall have to be extremely brisk. My remarks are still well meant for all that, however. As everyone has recognised, Britain has a special place in Cyprus and vice versa. The large Cypriot community is part of the landscape of British society and the island of Cyprus has a special place in the hearts of millions of British people. The history of our close ties does not need recounting here—I have recounted it on at least two previous occasions. The closeness between the two countries means that we shall always be centrally involved in work to end the divisions on the island. The presence and contribution of so many Cypriots in Britain mean that we feel the tragedy of division all the more acutely.
The House has heard of Mr. Denktash' s sudden illness and will wish to join me in wishing him a full and speedy recovery. The leaders of both communities play a central role in the search for a settlement. The recognition question, of course, colours the nature of our contacts with each leader, but it is essential that we listen carefully to the concerns of both communities, as several hon. Members have said. We shall continue to maintain contact with both leaders.
At times, the job of bridge-builder in Cyprus would try the perseverance of Sisyphus. I am sure that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South could give us an appropriate classical quotation. The divisions have gone on too long. The world has seen progress in other seemingly intractable and long-running disputes, so why not in Cyprus? I understand the impatience of hon. Members for progress in Cyprus. Cypriots themselves are understandably anxious for new initiatives to break the deadlock. However, neither we, the UN, the EU nor any other outside body has the solution in its hands. Only the two communities can decide what is acceptable and what arrangements are likely to last. The rest of us cannot laze around under the "tree of idleness" depicted so memorably by Lawrence Dun-ell in "Bitter Lemons", but our role is to offer advice, objective counsel and imaginative encouragement, not to impose a blueprint.
There has been a tendency to forget or belittle the painstaking work of the UN to bring the sides together. Talk, perhaps understandably, has been more of the prospect of accession to the European Union. I shall come on to the role of the EU a little later, but it would be a mistake to allow the UN's work to fade into the background as it remains a key reference point for negotiators in both communities. I am struck, for instance, by how central the principles of the 1992 UN set of ideas are to any discussion on the island about the Cyprus problem. The Government firmly believe that the ideas explored in the UN-led negotiations over the years will remain the building blocks of a settlement.
The United Nations has been closely involved in the question of people missing following the tragedy of 1974. No discussion of Cyprus can ignore a question that is rightly a source of anguish to many Cypriots. I know from today's debate and many others that that subject concerns the House. We recognise that it has caused untold suffering over the years. It is in the interest of both sides that the issue should be resolved as soon as possible.
The best way to do that, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central suggested, is through the UN committee on missing persons. It is encouraging that the committee has persuaded both communities to submit details of missing relatives. We must allow it to carry on its painstaking work, which we


repeatedly urge both sides to do their utmost to facilitate. We have noted Mr. Denktash's remarks in that context and the Government of course deplore the atrocities that have been committed in Cyprus. If he has any information, new or old, we trust that he will pass it to the UN committee on missing persons. We repeatedly urge both sides to do their utmost to facilitate the committee's work, as was noted by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, by my hon. Friends the Members for Edmonton and for Hendon, South and by other hon. Members.
The UN's contribution to security in Cyprus through UNFICYP remains as important as ever. A walk through the buffer zone in Nicosia is enough, as has been said, to bring home the importance of UNFICYP's work. We can take some pride in the fact that Britain has been a major contributor to UNFICYP since its inception and that our contingent's present role in the sensitive Nicosia area is especially important. There is more to UNFICYP than security. Its humanitarian work has provided an important stimulus to both communities to improve the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots and Maronites living in the north and the Turkish Cypriots living in the south.
There is still some way to go. We see no reason to maintain the remaining restrictions on the Greek Cypriot enclave in Karpas. We should also not forget that the 400 or so British soldiers who, together with their colleagues, make up UNFICYP play a crucial role in creating the conditions of peace and security in which a settlement can be pursued. I say this clearly because I want the point to be taken: they are emphatically not there to perpetuate the status quo.
On the last occasion that the House debated Cyprus, we discussed the confidence-building measures, to which several hon. Members referred. The talks led by the UN Secretary-General came close to agreement on the resettlement of Varosha and the re-opening of Nicosia international airport. Sadly, the CBMs were a missed opportunity. The reasons for their failure have been well documented, but it would be a shame if they sank irretrievably into mutual recrimination. We believe that the package of measures could still play a useful role in the work of overall settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South made that point most persuasively and was reinforced by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South.
Another important staging post was the direct talks between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash in October 1994. The imaginative approach adopted by President Clerides brought new hope. Mr. Denktash helpfully reaffirmed his commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Although those talks brought no concrete conclusions, they were a driving force for the confidential talks in London in May last year under the auspices of ourselves and the Americans. Their outcome was perhaps disappointing. The lesson from that experience is that nothing can be achieved in the full glare of publicity: privacy is vital to the success of such talks.
The task following the May talks was to ensure that the momentum was not lost. Our contacts with both communities sought to encourage a common perception of the sort of trade-offs needed to make real progress. Our high commissioner in Nicosia worked untiringly to maintain both communities' focus on the central issues. His efforts

and those of his US colleague and UN deputy special representative, Gus Feissel, proved invaluable for the visit to Cyprus in December by the US presidential emissary, Dick Beattie, who worked on a short round of shuttle diplomacy across the green line with modest expectations.
We were all heartened when it became apparent that Mr. Denktash was prepared, in certain circumstances, to support EU membership for Cyprus within the terms of a political settlement. Mr. Denktash acknowledged that this was a U-turn. We were heartened, too, that both leaders were still prepared to explore the ideas advanced by President Clerides in the last direct talks in October 1994. It was, of course, disappointing that Mr. Beattie's efforts did not make more progress, but the fact that the leaders were addressing issues at the heart of the dispute and Mr. Denktash's response provide a more encouraging basis for progress than hitherto.
The European Union's role must be seen in perspective. The decision at the 6 March 1995 Foreign Affairs Council to open accession negotiations with Cyprus six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference was a milestone. It envisaged what we all want: Cyprus joining the EU on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation.
Cypriots as a whole stand to gain significantly from EU membership. Both communities have a strong interest in finding an acceptable settlement, which we believe will bring EU accession within easy reach. That means hard work by both communities between now and the opening of accession negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton expressed the accession issues rather well. Both sides are aware that accession in the absence of a settlement, although by no means impossible, would be a much more difficult process and that neither side can insist on accession proceeding entirely on its own terms. There can be no veto.
Real progress has been made in preparing Cyprus for accession, as many hon. Members have said. The EU-Cyprus Association Council has set out a pre-accession strategy and a structured dialogue, which is going well. On 6 March the Foreign Affairs Council mandated the Commission to develop contacts with the Turkish Cypriot community. It has a duty to discover and to examine the community's detailed concerns about European Union membership and to consider how they can be met. Commissioner Van den Broek has just returned from a visit to the island to take forward the mandate. It is essential that Turkish Cypriots hear an authoritative account of the benefits of membership and how their specific concerns can be met.
I do not want the House to think that the tensions in the Aegean have discouraged us from keeping up our efforts to pursue a settlement. There are always excuses to do nothing, but the House is not interested in excuses. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary takes a close personal interest in Cyprus. He believes, as I do, that Britain can and must use its special position to maximum effect. At the Foreign Secretary's request, the political director at the Foreign Office recently visited Cyprus and the region for talks with political leaders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The time is up.

Driving Licences (Eyesight Tests)

Mr. Roy Hughes: This short debate is about the new regulations applying to eye tests for the drivers of heavy goods vehicles. I declare my interest at the outset: I am, and have been throughout my years of service in this place, a sponsored member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I have always been very proud of my trade union connections. I approached the Transport and General Workers Union on the subject—about which there is much public concern—as it has a great deal of experience and expertise to offer.
I am the first to agree that safety must be the paramount concern when issuing driving licences. However, I am perturbed that the new regulations could put some of our safest and most experienced drivers off the road. Many could lose their livelihoods and be forced to join the bulging dole queues, without receiving any compensation.
The problem began with European Union directive 91/439, which stipulates that commercial vehicle drivers cannot be given a new licence, or renew an old one, unless they pass a minimum sight test without the aid of glasses or contact lenses. The argument is that a driver must be able to drive safely if his glasses are knocked off while driving—although there is no evidence that that has ever caused an accident.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) put down a series of rather interesting parliamentary questions on that subject, and received an answer from the Minister for Transport in London, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), who will reply to the debate today. The questions, which were directed to the Department of Transport, were as follows:
(1) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses;
(2) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a passenger service vehicle and was blind in one eye;
(3) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and required spectacles or contact lenses;
(4) how many road accidents have occurred in the last five years for which figures are available where one driver involved was driving a heavy goods vehicle and was blind in one eye".
The hon. Gentleman received an omnibus reply to his four questions, which stated:
This information is not available".—[Official Report, 4 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 25.]
The Minister is on record as saying that he decided to introduce the new standards. However, in the light of that answer, it seems that he based that decision on pretty flimsy evidence. The new eyesight test rules have been copied directly from the EC directive on driving licences No. 91/439.
The other important change in the regulations is the removal, from 1 July 1996, of the so-called grandfather rights. They give drivers the right to continue to drive buses or lorries if their eyesight falls below any new, higher standards that may be introduced. Under existing regulations, drivers may drive such vehicles if they continue to meet the eyesight standards which applied when they obtained their licences, despite the introduction of higher standards subsequently.
The Government now believe that grandfather rights for eyesight standards pose sufficient risks to road safety and can no longer be accepted. I have said already that the Government's conclusions appear to be based on pretty flimsy evidence. What is even more remarkable is the European Commission's admission that Britain is the only country in Europe that intends to enforce the new tests for older, more experienced drivers. Every other country in the European Union plans to retain grandfather rights which allow existing holders of licences that were issued before 1983 to keep them and to continue working. British drivers will be put out of work as a result of the Government following that absurd European Union directive—which, incidentally, came about while in pursuit of a common driving licence which would operate throughout the European Community.
The Government tend to play down the number of jobs that could be lost as a result of the directive. That was evident in the reply that I received from the Leader of the House when I raised the subject during business questions on 22 February. He suggested:
some press reports have given an exaggerated picture of the impact of the changes and have caused unnecessary alarm".— [Official Report, 22 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 515.]
The Minister has estimated, after minimal research—to put it politely—that up to 3,000 jobs could be lost. However, the Transport and General Workers Union and other trade unions have conducted their own surveys and they believe that the number will be much greater. They suggest that the job losses will be on-going, as drivers who are currently all right experience deterioration in their vision and lose their licences in due course.

Sir Peter Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, under the new regulations, someone who acquires a passenger service vehicle or heavy goods vehicle licence at the age of 25, for example, will not be subject to the regulations until he reaches the age of 45? Within 12 months of reaching that age, he may need to wear glasses or contact lenses. That means that younger drivers could wear glasses or contact lenses and continue to work for some 19 years, while those aged more than 45 would lose their livelihoods.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: that illustrates the absurdity of the new directive. I shall give hon. Members some examples of the sorts of people who are likely to lose their jobs as a result of the directive. Mr. Jim Good is a chemical tanker driver from Southampton. He is a highly trained, highly experienced professional driver, with a perfect record and a clean licence. He is 51 years old and will apparently lose his licence in three years. Mr. Michael Kavanagh owns a small haulage firm in Huddersfield. He has only one eye and will be unable to afford to employ another driver in his place. His business is likely to fold.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) has brought to my attention the plight of one of his constituents: Mr. Alan Forester, of Jarrow, feels that he is in danger of losing his job as a result of these new regulations. Fred Morse, 50, of Bristol, has an excellent record but he will shortly lose his licence.

Ms Joyce Quin: One of my constituents, who has a clean licence and an outstanding record—in fact, he has been recommended for safety awards—is likely to lose his job if the directive goes through unamended.

Mr. Hughes: That is yet another example of the type of people who will be affected. Mrs. Judith Pearman, of Buckinghamshire, wrote the following letter to her local newspaper:
My husband Ken has been a heavy goods vehicle driver for 25 years but now seems likely to lose his job. Why? Redundancy? Sacked for theft or gross misconduct? No, none of these.
The European Union has decreed that all holders of LGV licences must pass an eye test, unaided, without glasses or contact lenses. Drivers who don't pass lose their licences and their livelihoods.
Is the Government concerned? No: Commons leader Tony Newton says it will affect only a small minority. Well, I've got news for him. One-third of my husband's colleagues wear glasses or contact lenses: that's 15 people about to join the ever-growing scrapheap of experienced workers. And I've even more startling news for bespectacled John Major: they used to be Tory voters.
Is this the Government's way of taking lorries off the road to ensure more goods are transported by Wisconsin Railway? … We mustn't let the road haulage industry be steam-rollered into submission like the late-lamented fishing industry. Watch out, left-handed people: you're next.
Judith Pearman
Hartwell, Bucks.
Another truck driver—who has proved to be one of the most skilled in the country—faces losing his livelihood after failing a mock-up version of the new eyesight text at his optician. Norwich-based Les Gaskins, a veteran with over 30 years' driving experience and a 1989 finalist in the driver of the year contest, has worn glasses all his life and will lose his licence because he is required to take part of the test without them. He says:
With my glasses on I have good vision and my driving record shows that, but without them my optician says I will definitely fail. I am looking at losing 12 years' driving—nearly £250,000 in wages—and have less than a year left on my licence.
Mr. Gaskins says that if the Government class defective eyesight as a disability, the drivers affected should receive disability allowances.
On 31 January, Mr. Raymond Trotter, of Woodthorpe, York, North Yorkshire, wrote the following letter:
I am writing to you about the new law concerning lorry drivers. I recently went for a medical, with my work's doctor, to renew my class 1 LGV licence. I was told that he could not pass me, because of a new directive from the DVLC.
This says that because I wear glasses, I have to be able to read the top letter on a wall chart from three meters, without my glasses. Even though I had been to the optician that morning, and had got a good enough reading on my eye test to pass the previous limit, my optician said that I was alright to carry on driving lorries. It was afterwards that my work's doctor showed me the new DVLC directive.
My optician was obviously not aware of this new directive, as were a few lorry drivers that I have spoken to since. I think this is something to do with if a driver breaks his glasses whilst driving. I can't think of any reason for anybody to be driving without his glasses if they need them to drive.
Yours sincerely,
R. Trotter.
Those are the sorts of people, from all over the country, who are likely to lose their jobs.
Why is Britain taking such a rigid line on this issue? I understand that no other country in Europe is to abolish the so-called grandfather rights, and the Commission is permitting them to follow that course. The Transport and General Workers Union is adamant that, given the lack of evidence to the contrary, the retention of the grandfather rights does not compromise health and safety. To some extent, the College of Optometrists backs up this point of view and says that it is difficult to understand the reason for a set standard of uncorrected vision.
The Government have made a mistake: it is a proverbial cock-up. I advise them of the old adage: when in a hole, stop digging. I urge the Minister to take a far more flexible line on this European Union directive. He would be wise to do so.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) for initiating this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to present the facts about the changes to eyesight standards for lorry and bus drivers that come into effect in July. I am afraid that the facts and objectivity have been sadly lacking in media coverage of this matter in recent weeks, and in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I have read far too many newspaper reports that have completely misled their readers and grossly exaggerated the effects of the changes in the law by giving the impression—incidentally, an impression conveyed in some of the letters that the hon. Gentleman has just read—that most bus and lorry drivers who need to wear glasses for driving are to be forced off the road.
Some of those more highly coloured reports have even suggested that any driver who wears glasses will lose his licence. Inaccurate reporting is something that Governments have to get used to—but my main concern about some of the things that I have read is that too much unnecessary distress has been caused to large numbers of drivers and their families, most of whom have nothing to worry about.
Much of the press comment has written up the story as a Brussels bombshell, but the second driving licence directive was agreed by member states in 1991. It contains a number of measures designed to make life easier for motorists moving around Europe—for example, mutual recognition of driving licences—and generally to improve road safety. By and large, the measures represent a joining together of existing practice in member states.
To put the record straight on eyesight, the standards prescribed in the second directive are largely those that already apply in Britain. That is not surprising as we had a major input into them. The vast majority of bus and lorry drivers, including those who need to wear glasses or contact lenses for driving, will not be affected by them. The EC directive requires a minimum level of vision in both eyes with or without glasses. The United Kingdom already applies the identical standard. It requires a normal field of vision in both eyes, as does the United Kingdom. It requires that drivers must not suffer from double vision. That is already a requirement in the United Kingdom. Finally—this is where people seem to be getting somewhat carried away—it requires all drivers who need to wear glasses for driving to meet a minimum standard of vision without their glasses or contact lenses.
Let me make two points about that final requirement. First, we already require, and have done since 1983, a minimum standard of vision without glasses for bus and


lorry drivers. There is absolutely nothing new in that. The only change is that the standard will have to be met in both eyes rather than in one.
Secondly, the standard itself has not changed and is not a tough standard, as some reports have suggested. It is equivalent to reading the top line on an optician's chart from a distance of 3 m. I hope that the House will reflect for a moment on what that means. There is a practical reason for that: it is designed to ensure that, in the event of glasses or contact lenses being dislodged in an emergency or collision, the driver has at least the minimum vision needed to bring his vehicle to a halt or to manoeuvre it to safety. It does not seem unreasonable to require a driver in that situation—however rarely it might occur—to be able to see other vehicles or pedestrians and take the necessary precautions. Having to hand a spare pair of glasses or contact lenses is not the answer in an emergency. Apart from that practical consideration, it is likely that a driver who could not pass the test without glasses would require lenses so thick that he or she would not have a normal field of vision when wearing glasses, and would fail the standard on that account.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I shall not give way now as I have a great deal to say to correct the dreadful misinformation that has been put about, but I shall give way later, if I have sufficient time.
The standards in the directive, which, as I have said, are very much in line with current United Kingdom standards, represent the consensus view of road safety and medical experts in the EU member states as to what minimum eyesight requirements are compatible with road safety for the drivers of large and potentially dangerous vehicles.
In the light of that expert advice, the Government had to take a decision as to whether the new standards should apply only to new drivers—those who apply for a licence after 1 July—or to current licence holders as well. That is known as the grandfather rights issue. It is complicated by the fact that in the United Kingdom we have for many years operated a system of grandfather rights that allows drivers who continue to meet the eyesight requirements that applied when they first obtained their licence to continue driving even if they cannot meet the more stringent requirements that were introduced subsequently. So, for example, a person with sight in only one eye is already barred from applying for a licence to drive buses or lorries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) has left the Chamber, but I shall reply to him in his absence. A 25-year-old would not be granted a licence that did not conform to the requirements of the second directive. We have been applying that new standard administratively for some years. I should tell the hon. Member for Newport, East, who unwisely agreed with my hon. Friend, that the youngest driver likely to be affected will be about 32 years old.
Let me make it clear that we still allow relatively few drivers with sight in only one eye to continue driving simply because it was allowed at the time they obtained their licences. The standards in the directive add another stricter requirement to the current standards, so people driving on grandfather rights will fall even further behind the requirements considered compatible with road safety.
In considering the position of existing drivers, we were only too aware that some of those who would not now be entitled to drive were it not for the grandfather rights provision might well have an accident-free driving record, and for some the loss of their licence could mean the loss of their jobs. On the other hand, continuing with the grandfather rights system would effectively permit licences to be renewed by a few individuals whose eyesight fell well below what had been agreed as the minimum safe standards. Our view was that the system of grandfather rights carried significant risks to road safety.
It is difficult to justify on any objective criteria allowing a minority of drivers to continue to hold licences if they cannot meet the same standards that apply to the majority. Therefore, we put those points for consideration in a public consultation paper. We consulted 95 bodies, including trade associations, employees' representative bodies and motoring organisations as well as medical and road safety interests. The views expressed in response to that letter were fairly evenly divided between those who thought that grandfather rights should continue and those who felt that they should be abolished. After carefully considering those views, I personally took a decision, which I announced last October, that road safety would not be best served if drivers of those vehicles were allowed to continue driving on the basis simply of licensing history rather than of any criteria relating to safety.
It was not an easy decision, but we are not here simply to make easy decisions. I have no doubt that, had we reached a different decision, many of those who are now critical of the changes that we are introducing would be the first to complain about inadequate safety and Government intransigence if, for example, a bus driver with eyesight below the new standard had an accident in which schoolchildren were killed or injured.
Our estimate is that some 3,000 drivers will lose their entitlement to drive lorries or buses as a result of the change in the law. That represents about 0.2 per cent. or one fifth of 1 per cent. of those currently licensed to drive lorries and buses—considerably lower than figures such as 25 per cent. or the one third quoted by Mrs. Pearman in the letter that the hon. Gentleman read out and that has been quoted in the press. I wrote to the Daily Mail to point out the reality, but it declined to print my letter.
The drivers concerned will retain their current entitlement until their licences come up for renewal, when they will have to take the medical examination required with all renewal applications. Only at that point will those who cannot meet the new standard lose their entitlement.

Sir Harold Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Norris: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished former Deputy Speaker. I hope that he will appreciate, however, that there are still a number of calumnies in the observations of the hon. Member for Newport, East and I should like to deal with them.

Sir Harold Walker: I would not question the importance that the Minister is placing on safety, but I wonder whether he will comment on the case of my constituent, who is a one-eyed lorry driver. As he was unemployed, he was encouraged to invest in a lorry which


he now owns himself. He will now be deprived of his livelihood and his savings that he invested in that lorry. Is there no possibility of compensation for people in those circumstances, such as was provided to the owners of fishing vessels?

Mr. Norris: No. I regret that there is no such compensation, but I should make it clear that I take such matters very seriously.
I have been concerned to take account of one particular issue. I can tell the House in quite unequivocal terms that no jobs have been lost in the sense that the reservoir of jobs available in Britain has been diminished. The Government occasionally agree to proposals that have the effect of reducing the number of jobs that are available, and no Minister would take such a decision lightly, but I stress that the availability of jobs has not been diminished by the measure.
Some drivers who fail the medical standards may be excluded from some jobs. I have genuine and great sympathy for the people to whom the hon. Member for Newport, East has referred, but I reiterate that in the difficult matter of having to judge the interests of safety against the livelihoods of a small number of individuals, I have taken a decision—I accept that it is not an easy one, but I am not here to make easy decisions. I listened to the evidence and read the 95 responses to the consultation paper, and I shall make them available to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, so that he can see the arguments for himself.
Contrary to some misleading reports, most other EU member states simply have not yet reached a firm view on grandfather rights, although Austria is also abolishing grandfather rights. Press reports to the contrary are simply and unequivocally wrong.
I confirmed the Commission's view this morning with a Mr. Brisaer from DGVII. Its view is that any driver renewing a licence must comply with the requirements of the second directive, including the medical standards. The official even thought that there was an argument for making the new standards apply to all drivers immediately, but thought that might be too restrictive an interpretation. The official specifically denied that the Commission is prepared to
view sympathetically any individual states wanting to keep current minimum standards"—
the claim attributed in the Daily Mail to Mr. Smolders of the international road transport union. It is simply not the case that we are being more communautaire than the Commission or applying standards in this country that are uniquely draconian to our drivers.
Let me reiterate the absolutely essential point: 0.2 per cent., or one fifth of 1 per cent., of those currently licensed to drive will be affected. In practice, what will happen in many cases is that those drivers will continue to drive for companies but will drive vehicles of under 7.5 tonnes, as they are perfectly entitled still to do. No doubt other drivers currently perhaps driving smaller vehicles will take their jobs and so on but, in the circumstances, I am clear that we have made the right decision.
I hope that I have been able to restore some sense of perspective after the quite hysterical reporting of the issue. I know the hon. Member for Newport, East very well—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

European Convention on Human Rights

1 pm

Mr. Jacques Arnold: There is a rising tide of anger in this country at the apparently increasing number of judgments from remote European courts that fly in the face of sound common sense. Increasingly, those judgments are defying the will of the House and are overriding law passed after due consideration here and voted on by elected representatives of the British people. We must deal with that dangerous phenomenon.
We must distinguish between the judgments of the European Court of Justice and those of the European Court of Human Rights. Only yesterday, a European judgment prescribed massive compensation payments to Spanish fishermen banned from fishing in British waters, and the compensation payments are to be at the expense of the British taxpayer. Not so long ago, there was a ludicrous judgment to the effect that the Ministry of Defence should compensate service women dismissed on becoming pregnant, despite the terms and conditions of service that they accepted before entering the armed forces. Both were judgments of the European Court of Justice. That court is a separate and major problem worthy of careful consideration, but that matter is not for today's debate.
This debate is concerned with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Let us consider some recent cases which highlight the problems and which have enraged a clear majority of the British population and, I am sure, of hon. Members.
First, in August last year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that the legal costs of bringing a case should be paid by the British Government to the relatives of the IRA terrorists who were killed during an operation that they were carrying out to place a bomb in Gibraltar. Let us remember that that bomb would have killed or maimed many service men and innocent bystanders.
Secondly, it was ruled last month that the Home Secretary, who is answerable to the House, may no longer determine how long juvenile murderers must stay in custody for the protection of the public and that such decisions should be passed to the Parole Board. That means that, however strongly people and Parliament feel about a particular case, there will be no redress through our democratic system.
Thirdly, as long ago as 1982, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that corporal punishment in schools infringed the rights of parents. Some schools attempted to devise a parental authorisation form, but the resultant inequities among children were such that corporal punishment in state schools was effectively abolished. That was done in response to a legal requirement, not as a result of mature reflection or of that sanction being replaced with one just as effective.
More than 10 years later, it can be argued that the current problems of indiscipline in our schools stem from that decision. We have expected our teachers to maintain an orderly school environment without the adequate sanctions to enforce it. It was a triumph of idealism, enforced by remote and irresponsible judges, over the popular will and, dare I say it, over common sense.
Only yesterday, a Ministry of Defence report was published showing that 80 per cent. of service men oppose the lifting of the ban on homosexuality in the armed


services. Only 5 per cent. said that the ban should be lifted immediately. Common sense and popular opinion have spoken, yet four dismissed homosexuals are taking their case to the European Court of Human Rights. If they win, our courts, our procedures and the express wish of service men and of the House will be overruled yet again and taxpayers' money will be disbursed yet again.
There is a range of further cases in which law passed in the House has been overruled—I am thinking of anti-terrorist, contempt and blasphemy laws, among others.

Mr. David Nicholson: The point is that the European Court of Human Rights may well have been set up for sensible reasons some 50 years ago. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows the circumstances in which it was established, but it has become increasingly political as a court. While I have no objection to British citizens taking matters to a final court when British legislation is ambiguous or when the administration of law in this country has not been satisfactory—as I fear is sometimes the case—it is unacceptable to hon. Members and our electorate that the definite will of Parliament, as expressed in legislation, should be overruled by a foreign court.

Mr. Arnold: That is precisely what is happening—the court is overruling the House. After such cases, Ministers have all too often come to the House to amend the law, not because it has proved right to do so after mature consideration and debate, but because we have to fall into line with the latest European Court ruling. Clearly, those are cases of judge-made law, not law made by representative democracy.
Why are we getting those increasingly bizarre judgments? I believe that it is because, as with so many of our European institutions, there has been a distortion of the original intentions of the founding fathers and because circumstances in Europe have changed out of all recognition in the past 45 years.
Let us consider the circumstances in 1950, when the convention on human rights was signed. Europe was recovering from the horrifying excesses of the Nazi regime and was only too aware of the fiendish actions of the Soviet regime with its gulags. Those tragic events coloured the views and actions of the politicians who were then responsible.
The late Duncan Sandys, then the right hon. Member for Streatham, told the House on 13 November 1950:
The Government may, of course, say that human rights in this country are so safe in their hands that no outside protection is needed. We need not argue about that today. The fact remains there are certain countries in Western Europe with large Communist elements, which attach the greatest possible importance to the support which this Court can give them in certain circumstances.
Robert Boothby, the then hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, said in the same debate that
the Communist tactic is a brilliantly devised technique of infiltration, treason and ultimate violence, and the destruction of the non-Communist world by the fomentation of disputes. Against this technique, which exploits all methods of democracy, there is only one answer—the Charter of Human Rights."—[Official Report, 13 November 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1412–27]
But, for all those concerns expressed at the time, the view of the House remained that human rights in this country, for which hon. Members have fought for centuries, were

safeguarded. That fact was best summed up the following week by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the then Attorney-General, who said:
I think we are entitled to say that the law of this country has always been in advance of the laws of most other countries in regard to human rights."—[Official Report, 20 November 1950; Vol. 481, c. 16.]

Mr. David Martin: It is important to remember that when the court was originally set up, it was aimed at citizens of countries which did not have the parliamentary institutions that we have, but which had the most reprehensible and horrible regimes, with no individual redress for the lack of human rights. In practice, the convention has been applied because we respond to international judgments and often add extra measures to them. The convention has been applied in countries that are responsive to their people, as this country is, and it has been misused to clobber us on various occasions when it was originally intended for regimes very unlike our own.

Mr. Arnold: Yes. That is especially so, because the convention was signed when Germany was just emerging from its terrible experience on human rights and when France was recovering from the Vichy period, which saw considerable infringements in human rights. Those countries are western and civilised countries in the long term.
Today, Europe is totally different. Totalitarianism has gone, be it in the fascist form of Franco in Spain or Salazar in Portugal, or of the communist variety in Poland or the then Czechoslovakia and all points east. Membership of the Council of Europe and the European Union is dependent on democracy and human rights credentials. All new entrants from central and eastern Europe that have thrown off the yoke of communism are subject to those tests.
We have developed non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International and a series of others, which investigate and publicise such matters and bring facts to the attention of sovereign national Parliaments. However, those very organisations are themselves part of the problem. If they fail to win cases in the British courts, they use the European Court of Human Rights process as a means to override British courts. They foster many appeals to the European Court of Human Rights with a classical British efficiency, frequently funded by legal aid.
Such organisations are increasingly working through the European courts, and operating on a narrow, legalistic approach rather than bringing their cases to this democratic House. They are further encouraged to do so because European Court decisions effectively overrule the House through the requirement to implement consequential legislation. The reverse is not true. The cost to the British taxpayer is immense. Not only is legal aid incurred, but the cost of the defence case has to be paid. In the two years from 1993 to 1995 alone, the cost was a direct expense of £300,000 of taxpayers' money.
What are we going to do? The mere words "human rights" are such that mention of change brings forth terrible accusations of fascism, and Governments fight shy. However, the cases that I have raised today are not examples of a defence of human rights. They are politically correct judgments by remote and technically irresponsible judges. The place for political judgments is here in the House of Commons, where judgments and decisions are made by elected representatives of the British people.
We should fire a warning shot over the bows of this juggernaut. We should take a leaf out of the book of United Nations agencies reform, and look at the example of UNESCO. That organisation became inefficient, arguably corrupt, and in many ways ineffectual. We withdrew from membership. I believe that we should deal with the European convention on human rights in the same manner. It has become an anachronism, with its terms drawn too widely, which have been defined in a manner ever more detached and bizarre by the judges.
We, the mother of Parliaments, should determine that the Government should exercise their rights under article 65 of the European convention on human rights and denounce our participation, which would come into effect six months later. We lost a magnificent opportunity recently, when the Government could have refused to ratify protocol 11 and could have refused to renew our adherence. They did not.
The fundamental question before the House of Commons is whether we intend to uphold our sovereign rights and our centuries-old responsibilities to defend the right of the individual, or whether we shall increasingly cede those sovereign rights to unelected bodies that make pseudo-judicial but nevertheless political decisions. It is time that we faced up to our responsibilities in the House and to the British people.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House today. The Government are, of course, aware of the concerns that he mentioned. I know that those concerns are widespread, and I shall deal with them a little later.
It is important to start by putting the entire issue into its full context. I wish to emphasise the clear importance that the convention has as an international instrument for the protection of human rights. I remind the House that, in 1950, Winston Churchill supported the court's establishment when he said:
We have the Charter of Human Rights and we must have a European means of defending and enforcing it".
He argued that there had to be means whereby human rights abuses
can be brought to the test of impartial justice.
That statement is as true today as it was then.
Winston Churchill saw the European movement, especially the parts that are now represented by the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights, as the central unifying elements in post-war Europe. The sentiment that he expressed is indeed true today. He went on to say:
The Europe we seek to unite is all Europe; and in our Movement we must strive, by every means in our power, to help bring about conditions in which our fellow-European, now living in the satellite states of Russia, will be united with us.
Of course, it is one of the great changes in recent years that those states are no longer under Russia's yoke and can seek the way and the means to become free in a true sense and to justify their positions in a democratic community by guaranteeing the rights and freedoms of their peoples. I have to say that in some instances, as the House knows, that has not yet been fully achieved. We believe that the convention is an extremely important part of the continued pressure on those countries to seek to achieve that goal.
The convention is now the code of good behaviour for the wider Europe. That is not just rhetoric. The new democracies are using the convention as a benchmark for their legal and political systems and they are amending their laws and practices to bring them into line with its standards.

Mr. David Martin: On the subject of legal principles, the difference between our country and others is that—in our definition of impartial justice—the sovereign Parliament has always had the last word on any decisions in court. The way that the European Court of Human Rights operates denies our centuries-old tradition that in the end the sovereign Parliament has a say. That is part of our definition of impartial justice, to which Sir Winston Churchill referred.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I accept that our country has been streets ahead—of most of the countries to which I referred earlier—in the establishment of justice and in the way in which we have been accustomed to applying it. None the less, the fundamental underlying principles whereby liberty is guaranteed are universal and international. I do not believe that my hon. Friend would wish to see a situation in which the House denied the application of international standards of justice and individual liberty.
We insist that
respect for human rights and democratic principles
forms part of the European Union's trade and co-operation agreements with third countries. There is a clause to such effect in all treaty documents now issued by the EU under trading arrangements. The limitation of the convention is not as narrow as perhaps some of my hon. Friends might have thought. We are using it as a mechanism to spread the principle of the freedom of the individual and the underlying message of the convention beyond the European bounds. As such, the convention is a useful tool to try to establish both democracy and freedom across the entire globe.
Under the Dayton agreement on Bosnia, for example, the convention is applied there directly. The convention is thus serving an important practical purpose, in an attempt to restore freedom and liberty to that very troubled area of Europe. The convention is playing a critical part in the re-establishment there of the kind of freedoms that we are discussing today. That is the crux of the matter. I accept my hon. Friends' concerns, but this country was one of the convention's original signatories and the first to ratify in 1951. If we now denounced it, that would have a devastating effect on the chances of establishing the convention as a basis that other countries are prepared to adopt.
The convention's role as a bulwark to protect the rights of the individual and to provide the yardstick whereby democratic values were to be established and measured was clearly enunciated by Duncan Sandys in 1949, when the draft convention first saw the light of day. Where I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is that I believe that that role applies today as it did originally, whereas my hon. Friend was suggesting that the world has changed so much that we should withdraw from it and change our views on the convention's underlying message. I cannot agree.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend said that human rights standards are imposed in a number of European Union commercial arrangements, which is precisely my point. The convention, with its system of interfering courts, has become an anachronism. We should take steps to bring about reform. Even the founding father said that there was no problem with the human rights record of this country or with the powers and determination of the House to uphold the rights of British citizens.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is time to review the terms of the European Court of Human Rights. I shall return to that aspect later.
The United Kingdom is fully familiar with the rights guaranteed in the convention, which include freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to a fair trial. The first protocol also safeguards the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and requires that the philosophical and religious convictions of parents must be respected in the choice of their children's education.
As a founder member of the convention, the UK signed up to two optional articles covering the right of individual petition and compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court in 1966. In the time that has elapsed since, a number of cases have been held against us. However, the relatively high number of applications from the UK and the relatively low number of complaints upheld is a healthy sign of the level of awareness of human rights issues in the UK and of the Government's record in fulfilling their international obligations—not things of which we should be remotely ashamed.
The vast majority of cases brought under the convention are rejected in early stages and never see the light of day. Of those that did reach the European Court, it found against the Government in 40 cases. Countries such as France, Austria, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Switzerland have much higher figures than the UK, considered either by head of population or by the length of time that we have accepted the right of individual petition compared with those countries' much shorter time scales.
Up to May last year, France and Italy—which recognised the right of individual petition only in 1981 and 1973 respectively—incurred in the case of France 30 violations before the European Court and 51 before the Committee of Ministers, and in the case of Italy 83 and 347. The number of decisions awaiting remedial action is 40 for France and 330 for Italy.
Our successes often receive no publicity, as is so often the case. The phrase, "The Government win again," is apparently not one to which it is easy to make our media pay attention. There have been many useful decisions. In the context of Northern Ireland, it was extremely helpful to have it confirmed by an independent tribunal that special emergency powers are in line with convention standards. That happened in the case of Margaret Murray, which involved holding a suspect for interrogation. The same happened in other cases, such as that of Kelly, which involved the shooting of a joyrider, and Brannigan, when the question arose of the validity of the UK's derogation from the convention. The court upheld the fairness of our system of planning appeals in the Bryan case, and the immunity from libel action of Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in the Al Fayed case. Most recently, the Commission has rejected several complaints from pit

bull terrier owners about the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Where there are areas of contention, it is useful for the Government to have a non-UK arbiter acknowledging that this country is acting fully within the convention and reassuring world opinion.
Of course, I accept that there has been disquiet over some judgments, and that disquiet is fully shared by the Government. My hon. Friend mentioned several cases, so I shall not repeat the details. It is worth pointing out that we were particularly unhappy with last September's Gibraltar judgment on McCann, and we made that abundantly clear on several occasions in the House. It is worth bearing it in mind that the judgment was taken by only a narrow margin, and that the court found against the Government on one point only—the control and organisation of the operation. The court rejected the more significant claims that our law had breached the convention, that the inquest procedures were inadequate, that the killing of the three terrorists was premeditated, and that the action of the soldiers was in violation of the convention. In all those critical areas, the court found for us.
We should also remember that the court rejected the applicants' claim for compensation on the ground that the persons who were killed were terrorists intending to plant a bomb. The Government were left with the duty to pay costs, which we did in accordance with our practice of obeying international law. I repeat that we were not happy with that judgment. We were also profoundly unhappy with some other judgments, to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend did not raise the question of parliamentary scrutiny in this debate, but he frequently does so. I am aware that some hon. Members have questioned why—given that the convention affects the British people so directly—Parliament was not consulted before the Government decided to renew the two optional articles in January. If we had done so, that would have been contrary to previous practice. We have never at any time since 1966 put the question of renewing the articles to the House—although we kept the House fully informed, as we have on this occasion.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I intervene on that point?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have only three minutes left. I shall give way to my hon. Friend if there is time when I conclude my remarks.
The disquiet that we all share about some of the judgments of the Strasbourg court prompted the Government last year to review most carefully our continued adherence to the convention. There is a fundamental distinction between our dissatisfaction with certain judgments and our attitude to the European convention on human rights. The convention has our full support. We played a crucial role in drafting it, we continue to support it, and we believe that it remains an extremely important tool for ensuring that human rights are observed by the wide international community. However, we want changes—and I shall briefly outline them.
We want to ensure that judgments are not made against our national interests, while maintaining the defence of individual liberties within our society, and we want changes that ensure that the Strasbourg institutions take all relevant factors into account. To that end, we have in mind improvements in Strasbourg's fact-finding


procedures. We should like to sharpen the focus on the principal and relevant issues before the court. As a first step, we are proposing that the court considers introducing a new procedure under which it would make known its main areas of concern early enough for them to be addressed at hearings. If we had known the critical issue in the Gibraltar inquiry, we could have rebutted some of the facts on which the court based its judgment. That change would be a significant step forward in preventing the repetition of such an outcome.
We also want to ensure the quality of judges on the new permanent court that will be set up under protocol 11, probably in a couple of years' time. Good selection procedures for judges are important, and we want to start discussions soon in the Council of Europe, to see whether we can ensure that the court's judges are of the highest international calibre.
We shall argue for maintenance of the common standards of the European convention on human rights. At the same time, we shall seek wider and more consistent recognition of the need to respect different circumstances, traditions and laws and the ways in which standards are implemented in different countries. That, of course, will be extremely significant should the question of homosexuality in the armed forces arise. It is important that the standards of our approach to our military forces and the needs of the country are fully taken into account by the court when it reaches its conclusion. It is essential that these changes are in place before that occurs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.

Concessionary Television Licences

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and the House the St. Tydfil's court sheltered accommodation scheme in Merthyr Tydfil, in my constituency.
More than 40 pensioners resident in the scheme are currently denied the benefit of a concessionary television licence by the television licensing centre at Bristol. I argue that, first, the television licensing centre should reverse its decision and, secondly, that my constituency case reveals—as, indeed, do others—the anomalous and arbitrary nature of the regulations governing the concessionary scheme.
Since becoming involved in this constituency issue, I have been surprised at the shared experiences of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I heard, for example, from my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), both of whom showed me papers from protracted battles with the television licensing centre at Bristol. Happily, the centre changed its mind and they won their cases.
More recently, my attention was drawn to a case in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who, in the true tradition of the honourable nature of the House, helped me. I do not raise this matter in a party context. The information that the hon. Gentleman so kindly furnished me with has helped me to prepare my case, and I thank him sincerely for his patience and assistance.
I shall explain to the Minister the nature of St. Tydfil's court. It is a residential block of flats, with 10 floors, built in the 1940s. Progressively, it has become the home of pensioners. Realising that, Merthyr borough council sensitively and sensibly decided in 1990–91 to convert most of the block into proper sheltered accommodation and to provide a full-time warden resident in the block. Understandably, and following the example of all other sheltered accommodation schemes in the borough, the council and the tenants concerned had expected to qualify for the television licence concession. Indeed, the local authority advertised the concession when it issued tenancy agreements. It therefore came as a great surprise to the borough council, and caused considerable resentment among the tenants in the sheltered scheme, when the television licensing centre refused to grant the concessionary licences.
When the issue arose, I read the conditions—indeed, I re-read them in preparing for the debate—laid down in the regulations that govern the concessionary scheme. To qualify, sheltered accommodation should fulfil several conditions. First, it should be provided, or run, by the local authority or a housing association. The St. Tydfil's sheltered accommodation scheme is run and provided by Merthyr borough council. Secondly, it must be specially provided by way of erection or conversion for occupation only by retirement pensioners or disabled people. As I have explained, the borough council converted most of the block of flats into a proper sheltered accommodation scheme, so it qualifies under the second condition. Thirdly, the scheme must be served by a full-time or resident warden. At first, the BBC licence fee unit sought to deny the concession to my constituents on the ground of the absence of a warden,


but a full-time warden has been, and still is, resident in the block. St. Tydfil's court therefore qualifies under the third condition.
Fourthly, there must be a communal facility within the boundary intended to meet the needs of residents. There are such facilities at St. Tydfil's court. Those four conditions are fully met by the sheltered accommodation scheme at St. Tydfil's court. The pensioners of St. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary licence on a fifth ground, the condition which states that the accommodation
must form part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary".
Since residents and the local authority raised this case with me, I have discovered that the words and phrases in the fifth condition have caused considerable confusion, created a number of anomalies and, in my opinion, led to arbitrary refusal to grant concessionary licences to pensioners who should qualify. The words have caused much confusion about who should qualify. It seems that the sole reason why residents at St. Tydfil's court are being denied the concessionary television licence is that, before the conversion of the block of flats, a number of residents purchased their flats under the right-to-buy scheme.
I should say straight away that the residents who bought their flats accept that they do not qualify under the present arrangements. They signed a petition and support representations made by their neighbours. They have shown traditional Merthyr neighbourly comradeship in supporting their neighbours' case. Indeed, the local campaign on behalf of the pensioners is remarkable because of the people who are involved, especially the redoubtable Mr. McNaughton. He has bombarded Ministers, the Prime Minister, officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol, and everybody within reach, to make the case on behalf of the residents and pensioners. That is all the more special because Mr. McNaughton is a registered blind person.
The Minister will understand the resentment that is felt that officials at the television licensing centre in Bristol have repeatedly refused our pleas. I am sad to report that they have also repeatedly refused to visit the complex. That failure to heed our pleas and to visit is resented all the more because it is clear that the fifth condition is open to interpretation and reinterpretation. I suspect that the Minister will know of cases, of which I am not aware, where there have been battles between pensioner groups, the television licensing centre and his Department.
I have already mentioned cases in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Mansfield, which, after protracted discussion, were successful. The most recent case that has been brought to my attention is one in the constituency of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. He has kindly sent me the letter from the television licensing centre in Bristol, which eventually conceded the case that he made. In this case, it seems to be a mixed development. We are told, for example, that
numbers 1 to 17 and 27 to 47 (odds) Homefield Close can be regarded as being within a common and exclusive boundary … From the site plan provided, it would appear that the warden can move freely between the two elements of the scheme via the car park which separates the scheme.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in persuading the television centre that that case qualifies.
In the case of St Tydfil's court, the warden does not have to cross a car park: she is resident in the block. Pensioners who qualify are easily identifiable, because they pay into the scheme. It is a curious interpretation of "common and exclusive boundary" that rules out a concessionary scheme at St Tydfil's court for the simple reason that, before its conversion, a number of residents—rightly and understandably—purchased their properties under the right-to-buy scheme.
I plead with the television centre to reverse its decision and concede this case, as it has had to concede other cases. If it refuses to do so, however, we must concentrate on the fact that the regulations themselves deny pensioners in sheltered accommodation a concession that I think, in its heart of hearts, Parliament probably intended to allow them. I do not believe that the original intention was to exclude those in sheltered accommodation at St Tydfil's court.
Along with my hon. Friends who are present, I accept that many deserving pensioners will be deprived of the benefits of any concessionary scheme. Thousands who live alone in their own homes will not qualify. Once a scheme for those in sheltered accommodation has been proposed, however, we should ensure that it is simple: certainly, it should not create the anomalies and confusion that have been created by the "common and exclusive boundary" condition. A scheme for pensioners in sheltered accommodation served by a full-time warden would provide a clear definition of those who should qualify for the concession. I do not believe that any complications or anomalies would have been caused if only the first four conditions had provided the criteria, but the fifth condition will continue to cause such problems until it is changed. I do not think that a simple amendment or clarification of the regulations would bust the BBC or wreck the public sector borrowing requirement. The vast majority of properly organised sheltered accommodation schemes qualify.
I hope that the pensioners at St Tydfil's court will win their case. I ask the Minister to re-examine the concessionary scheme, and amend it. It was meant to offer comfort and assistance to pensioners in sheltered accommodation, rather than to cause resentment and bitterness. I hope that the Minister will heed our plea and accept our case.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on obtaining time for the debate, and thank him for his generosity in allowing me to speak for a couple of minutes.
The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about anomalies and interpretation. I have read the leading judgment on the subject—the Crown and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Kirklees borough council. No doubt, the Minister is acquainted with it. Mr. Justice Taylor refers to interpretation throughout the judgment. As a lawyer, I believe that the law needs to be clarified, not only in the specific context of the people of Merthyr Tydfil—of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke so forcefully—but in a wider context. I am sure that many people in Wales, England and Scotland are in similar circumstances, and I, too, urge the Minister to reconsider.
Let me make two specific points. First, does the Minister think it fair that elderly people who are cared for at home by their relations do not qualify for the concessionary scheme, while those who are in registered homes do? Ultimately, the concession is allowed to the elderly person rather than anyone else. It is clear from the 1991 regulations—which I have read—that the matter could be resolved easily by means of an amendment of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
Secondly, the residents of Ganllwyd and Abergeirw, near Dolgellau, do not receive terrestrial television transmissions; they rely on satellite television. However, they must pay the licence fee. Is it right for people to pay for a service that they do not receive? Good sense and common law suggest that it is not. Is that being investigated? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of similar localities throughout Wales, because it is a mountainous country.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. fain Sproat): I congratulate the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on securing the debate, and thank him for the courteous and persuasive way in which he put his case. I take what he has said very seriously, and, while I cede no principle or practice at this stage, I should be happy to speak to him about the matter. I should also be happy to speak to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). They may wish to talk to me, either together or separately. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) has an even tighter case: I believe that only one flat in 50 is owner-occupied in Severn house, but that prevents all the other people in the block from benefiting from the concessionary scheme.
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has devoted considerable time to this subject over the years. He has campaigned long and hard in respect of the application for St Tydfil's court to be granted concessionary licence status, and this afternoon he has demonstrated that he is familiar with the general position as set out in the White Paper. He will also know that, since 1 April 1991, the BBC has been responsible for the administration of the television licensing system. That role is primarily exercised by way of its agents in Bristol, TV Licensing, and includes determining whether individual applications for concessionary licences can be granted. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in individual cases, other than to say, "Come and explain why you think that the arrangements should be changed."
Nor is there any option for the BBC to exercise discretion in how the relevant regulations are interpreted. That would erode the framework of general application provided by those regulations and would lead to numerous disputes. Although the circumstances of St Tydfil's court remain a matter on which the BBC must reach judgment, I am sorry that, so far, it seems to the people who have considered the scheme that it fails to meet the qualifying criteria set out in the regulations—the point on which the hon. Gentleman has sought to persuade me otherwise.
The House is familiar with problems raised by constituents who, understandably, do not always understand the reasons for the concessionary scheme

existing in its present form. The scheme is of particular concern, because it directly affects some of the more elderly members of society and disabled people. It is right therefore that the scheme should be kept under close scrutiny. The Government have done that and, although there has been no significant change since the last full, detailed review in 1988, it would be wrong to assume that we are not aware of the hard cases and anomalous positions that can and do arise.
That is an inevitable consequence with any position in which lines must be drawn, but it does not mean that the scheme as a whole is unfair, nor that it necessarily needs to be changed. It has been kept under close review and, while we accept that it does not always yield results that make everybody content, we find little advantage at the moment in conducting a further review of the scheme.
It may assist hon. Members if I give a little background about the introduction and development of the concessionary scheme. Its modern history may be familiar to some, but, oddly, the scheme originated by default more than 40 years ago as individual postmasters took it upon themselves to waive the requirement for certain old people living in old people's homes to pay a radio or television licence fee.
Later, Post Office headquarters stopped granting further concessions, thus creating an arbitrary distinction between individual cases. In 1966, the Postmaster General considered ending the concession altogether, but decided that that would be unjust, and offered the concession to all old people's homes. Importantly, at that stage, sheltered housing schemes for pensioners, with some communal facility that rendered them comparable to old people's homes, were included in the scheme.
In 1968, the plans for the concessionary scheme were put on to a formal footing and the first set of regulations laid. Incidentally, in that year, a separate colour television licence was introduced, making the possibility of a concessionary fee that much more attractive. The opportunity was taken to clarify the qualifying conditions, and further consideration was given to the precise definition of sheltered housing, which is crucial to any discussion of the scheme.
In subsequent years, external pressure for further reviews was exerted. All sorts of possibilities were given serious consideration—extending the scheme, introducing some discretion or abolishing it—but in no case did the Government in power at the time consider that the proposed solution would have enabled the concessionary television licence scheme to be operated more fairly, while remaining true to its original intentions. The proposals would have been too complex to administer, too expensive or simply unacceptable.
Nevertheless, as all hon. Members know, there is pressure even now for pensioners to be given a general concession against the cost of the full television licence, but often it is not realised that concessionary £5 licences for all the 7.75 million pensioner households would cost more than £500 million in lost licence fee revenue.

Mr. Rowlands: I never made that case.

Mr. Sproat: I understand, but it is important for hon. Members and the outside world to realise the context in which this matter is set. If time allows, I shall return to the application of my comments to St. Tydfil's court.
Of course, the Government recognise television's important role for people of pensionable age, but we do not believe that a general concession could be justified. That would necessitate an unacceptably large increase in the fee for everyone else, possibly raising it to almost £130 each year, and many of the people who would have to pay such a huge increase in their licence fee might be worse off financially than many pensioners. If the fee were not adjusted, the BBC believes that its capacity to fulfil its public service broadcasting remit would be severely threatened.
In the past 20 years, the only significant changes have been connected with the qualifying criteria for sheltered housing, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Those changes sought to retain an equitable approach, although remaining true to the scheme's original intentions. The Government believe that that is still the correct view to take.
In 1982, physically disabled and mentally disordered people, living in comparable accommodation to that already covered by the scheme, were brought within the scheme's scope. That was on the ground that it would be an unacceptable anomaly to treat them differently from pensioners occupying similar accommodation, and there has been no dispute in that respect.
Towards the end of 1984, Kirklees metropolitan borough council applied for concessionary licences for some of its residents in accommodation served by housing stewards, whose duties included rent collection, care of the housing stock and provision of advice and assistance to residents. The Home Office refused to grant the claim on the ground that that was not a valid interpretation of the "common facility" required by the regulations, but in 1987 the council won the case at judicial review. That had far-reaching and unacceptable implications.
In effect, that judgment opened the way for local authorities to bring many eligible categories of people living in ordinary council housing into the concessionary scheme. They would simply need to claim that these were "groups" of "specially provided" housing. The housing would not even have had to be sheltered, which would have been contrary to the concessionary scheme's intention and extremely costly.

Mr. Rowlands: That is not true in the case of St. Tydfil's court.

Mr. Sproat: I am trying to put the matter in its context, which is important to understand. People who do not have concessionary licences and who live close to people who do often do not understand why. It is important that they know that there is a logic behind the position. As I said, the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to discuss the matter. A debate of this length is not the happiest way in which to discuss such an important matter and the detail that it requires.
Following the Kirklees case, the Government promptly conducted a major review of the scheme. Possible options were considered, but, once again, it would have been too expensive to extend the scheme. In contrast, it was deemed unfair to the many existing beneficiaries—I believe that there were more than 700,000 at that time—to take away a long-standing concession. The Government therefore

decided to restore the scheme's underlying intention, so that it would benefit retirement pensioners and disabled people living in residential homes or in sheltered housing that was directly comparable with such homes.
Eligibility for the concession was thus still linked to the type of accommodation occupied, as opposed to individual circumstances. In 1988, we introduced new regulations to define the qualifying criteria for sheltered housing schemes more rigorously. Those include all the criteria that apply today. First, in line with the established principles of the scheme and the need to be comparable with old people's homes, sheltered housing still has to be specially provided for retirement pensioners or disabled people and to be run by a local authority or housing association.
Secondly, such housing must form part of a group of at least four dwellings, which must lie within a common and exclusive boundary. If not, there would be no way of limiting the geographical spread of a so-called scheme and the Kirklees threat would still be a possibility. Lastly, the scheme must be served by a full-time or resident warden. That also relates to the desire to restrict the eligibility of sheltered housing to the sort of scheme that is directly comparable with an old people's home. A further requirement, for a communal facility for the residents within the boundary, has since been dropped as, in practice, it proved unnecessary in the context of the more tightly defined qualifying criteria.
I should like to return to the specific points on St. Tydfil's court that the hon. Gentleman properly raised. As I said, it would be inappropriate for me to make judgments in the BBC's place about applications from individual sheltered housing schemes. I am informed, however, that nine of the 66 dwellings in the block are privately owned, having been purchased under right-to-buy provisions. Thus, they cannot logically form part of the sheltered housing scheme. A "warden" works there for the requisite 30 hours each week, but it appears that St. Tydfil's court does not satisfy the common and exclusive boundary criterion set out in the regulations. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said that, as a lawyer, he did not agree with that interpretation, but that is the current interpretation.
Legal advice on similar cases has been that it is not even possible to draw an artificial boundary so that part of such a scheme can qualify. That is the problem with laying down rules—there are always decisions to be made in what might most appropriately be called borderline cases. The alternative, however, would be either to give the BBC the power to operate a discretionary system, which would surely be even more unfair, or to relax the qualifying criteria.
As I have pointed out, any extension of the scheme would reduce the licence fee revenue necessary for the BBC to continue to provide the quality and range of its services. We are thus left with the option of retaining a scheme which costs some £50 million each year in lost licence fee revenue and more to run, but which benefits about 600,000 people in line with the spirit of the original concession.
It would be unfair to draw to a close without discussing so-called preserved rights. The change in qualifying criteria that followed the Kirklees decision would have meant that many of those qualifying under the old rules would no longer have continued to do so under the new ones. Just as the Government did not wish to abolish the


scheme, nor did we want to take the concession away from anyone who had previously held it. The new regulations therefore included a provision to preserve the rights of existing beneficiaries for their lifetime, as long as they continued to reside in accommodation that would have met the old qualifying criteria.
That, I recognise, is a source of much confusion. It leads to positions where neighbours are treated differently due to past and not present circumstances. That is by no means ideal, but it is not logical simply to claim equal treatment with one's neighbour, even if one's first

impression is, perhaps understandably, that the position is not fair. That is an inevitable consequence of the saving provision in the regulations and the Government's determination not to take the concession away from anyone who already had it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Cyprus

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for the accession of Cyprus to the EU. [17257]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The accession negotiations will start six months after the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference and take account of its results.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the United States Administration's view that 1996 should be the year of Cyprus? Does he further agree that Cyprus's merits, both economic and otherwise, in making the application, should be viewed entirely in isolation and that, therefore, no third party, least of all the Turkish Government or the Turkish Cypriot regime in the north of the island, should have any right of veto over the process?

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the application by the Republic of Cyprus for accession to the European Union should, as my hon. Friend said, be considered on its merits, and that no third party should have a veto. It is of course unavoidable that, if there is a continuing division of the island, that will make the success of the negotiations far more difficult. It is timely to try to bring about a resumption of dialogue in Cyprus, so that work can go forward towards a resolution of the political divisions that have damaged the interests of the island for so long.

Mr. Mackinlay: Can the Foreign Secretary explain how Cyprus could be admitted to the European Union when some of its national territory is occupied? Surely if it acceded to the EU, that would mean that some of the EU's territory would be occupied, which would be intolerable. Does not something have to be resolved before we can realistically discuss Cyprus's admission? Surely the question of its independent sovereignty over the whole of its territory must be settled before we can countenance its admission.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government of the Republic of Cyprus are recognised as the Government of a country that covers the whole island—although the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the de facto division of the island makes accession to the European Union far more difficult than it would normally be. That is why I emphasised the fact that any political progress towards resolving the division would not only be desirable in itself but would make a major contribution to the success of the EU accession negotiations when they begin.

Dr. Twinn: I am grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. Does he know that his statement that neither party to the negotiations for a peace settlement

would be able to veto Cyprus's entry into the European Union will be welcome on the island of Cyprus? Does that not therefore make it even more important for Britain to renew its efforts to ensure that there is a settlement this year, before the negotiations are due to start? For Cypriots of all communities, the future of Cyprus will be more secure within the Union.

Mr. Rifkind: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has given its view—that a resumption of dialogue between the two Cypriot communities should be possible this year. With other interested parties, we are actively exploring ways in which progress can be identified. United Nations forces have now been on the island for more than 27 years. When one considers the progress that has been made on major problems in other parts of the world over that period, there is no convincing reason why, with the right political will, the two Cypriot communities could not resume dialogue and work towards a common solution.

West and South Asia (Strategic Weapons)

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to prevent the proliferation of strategic weapons and their delivery systems in west and south Asia. [17258]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): We are concerned about the possible proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems throughout the world. We urge all states to accede to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the chemical weapons convention and the biological weapons convention. We play an active part in efforts to control the spread of missiles and the supply of equipment related to the development of weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Cousins: Does the Minister recognise that, in the 1980s, Britain passed to Iraq nuclear weapons-making technology and Vickers tanks that could have been converted into launch vehicles for missiles, and that British expertise contributed to the development of Scud missiles into long-range weapons? Now that, in the same region, there are five or six countries with nuclear weapons-making capacity and six or seven with the ability to deliver those weapons in long-range missiles, what specific guidelines do the Government have to prevent the further proliferation of that evil technology in that unhappy region?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's retailing of a tired old story demonstrates his lack of judgment and why he was sacked from the Labour Front-Bench team some time ago. We have been active in the United Nations special commission on Iraq, which has raised continuing concerns about Iraq's ballistic missile, chemical and biological weapons programmes, and in the International Atomic Energy Agency in trying to put in place on-going monitoring and verification. Similarly, elsewhere in the area, we are encouraging countries to join the non-proliferation treaty. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps do better to join that encouragement rather than just attack this country.

Mr. Forman: Since the development of strategic weapons in west and south Asia—or any other part of the world—can sometimes be a consequence as well as a cause of very grave regional problems, is my hon. Friend aware of the urgent need for Britain to do even more to try to help reach a solution to the vexed problem of Kashmir, which is in that geographical zone? Can he bring the House up to date on how the Government are trying to bring together India and Pakistan, two prominent members of the Commonwealth, and reach a satisfactory peace for Kashmir?

Mr. Davis: There is no new initiative with respect to that part of the world. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the potential of weapons of mass destruction destabilising that part of the world. We have put a great deal of pressure on Governments there to ensure that they join the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.

"Questions of Procedure for Ministers"

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take following the publication of the Scott report to ensure that guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" is not breached. [17259]

Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February.

Mr. Cunningham: If, as Scott has found, Ministers should have told Parliament the truth, have not the Government been treating the matter in a light-hearted manner and should not the Secretary of State apologise on behalf of his colleagues?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what happened. I do not think that I can usefully add to the matters that were very fully debated in the House not very long ago.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's reply, but does he think that, in the light of the decision taken in principle by the Public Service Committee to look at "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" and the civil service code, following the Scott report's recommendations, his Department should wait on the Committee's recommendations?

Mr. Rifkind: We await with interest any recommendations of the Public Service Committee. It is worth remembering on behalf of those concerned with open government that the last Labour Government never thought of publishing "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The Government published, and can therefore claim credit for it.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" places an obligation on Ministers to tell the truth? Will he further confirm that Sir Richard Scott details not one, but seven occasions when his ministerial

colleagues breached that duty? Will he condemn those colleagues, or do those constitutional guidelines also have a flexible application?

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that Ministers complied with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", and I do not believe that untruths were told. The hon. Gentleman has no foundation for making such a suggestion.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scott report teaches us that it is always dangerous for the Government to impose greater restrictions on British industry than are imposed by other Governments? Do not those restrictions make it more difficult for people to determine whether to allow a licence? In the light of the Scott report, will the Government bring this country into line with the rest of the world on the issue of restricting the sale of arms and non-lethal military equipment to other Governments, thereby allowing British companies to sell goods and services that they are currently prevented from selling—despite the fact that the goods can be bought from other western nations?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that the Government showed more self-restraint on the sale of equipment to Iraq than almost any other western Government, but we have received little credit for that act of self-denial. Nevertheless, we will take policy decisions based on what we assess to be the right course of action. Although that may often coincide with what other Governments are doing, we will not feel bound to change our policy simply because other Governments have reached different conclusions.

Chechnya

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Russian Foreign Minister to discuss the situation in Chechnya. [17260]

Mr. Rifkind: I last saw Mr. Primakov on 27 February. On that occasion, Chechnya was not discussed.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that, since Sunday, Russian troops have been bombarding and strafing a village 30 miles from Grozny called Sernovodsk? Is he further aware that a corridor has had to be created to allow refugees to leave, and that the pall of smoke can be seen for many kilometres? What representations are the Government making before the Russian presidential elections to help find a peaceful and humanitarian solution? Does he agree that the people of the world will not tolerate the present situation for much longer?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that a political solution in Chechnya is likely to bring lasting peace and stability to that part of the Russian Federation. We hope that the Russian Government have now realised that a purely military approach is simply not working and that it is necessary for them to consider alternative means of ensuring the peaceful integration of Chechnya into the Russian Federation, to bring the violence to an end.

Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to study the report by the Quaker representative in Moscow on the assault by Russian troops and mercenaries on the village of Sernovodsk? Is he aware that that report suggests that there are more than 7,000 refugees from that village, and that the Russian troops and mercenaries involved have waged a sustained campaign—involving the use of artillery and helicopter gunships—that is continuing as we speak? Does he agree that it is time the civilised world said to the Russian Government, "Enough is enough. We will no longer turn a blind eye to the continuing barbarity in the northern Caucasus"?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not seen the Quaker report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I agree that the kind of military action that we have seen recently is to be deplored and condemned, and will damage Russia's reputation in the international community.

Export Promotion

Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of the Foreign Office and its posts overseas in promoting British exports. [17261]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Promoting British commercial interests is our largest single activity overseas, occupying 35 per cent. of the time of frontline staff. Our network of 218 commercial posts in 140 markets provides vital help to British firms developing their export business.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer probably explains why—in contrast to a few years ago, when it was difficult to find a company with a good word to say about the role of our posts overseas—there has been an increase in the number of large, medium and small companies that are happy to pay tribute to the work done by those posts, both in trade promotion and in encouraging inward investment? In this respect—as in so many others—does not that show that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget represents excellent value for money?

Mr. Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend for that last remark. There is little doubt that the four Ministers on the Front Bench were shouting, "Hear, hear!" My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The chairman of Rolls-Royce said recently that many of his company's overseas contracts had been won with the help of Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts. British Petroleum says that the British embassy in Baku and the FCO have made a tremendous contribution to the development of its business in Azerbaijan since 1992. The British high commission in Islamabad has helped National Grid to win a contract of more than $700 million.
My hon. Friend is right: small companies need help too—and they get it. The director of a small Sussex company, Wylam Hill, says that, without the help of posts overseas, about 80 per cent. of his exports would not have happened.

Mr. Eastham: What assurances can the Minister give that, when hon. Members write to the Foreign Secretary—as I did in 1988 about some of the exports to Iraq—they will get an honest answer? I received cock-and-bull stories denouncing and denying the facts that I laid before him. Does the Minister think that we are entitled to some honesty in this House?

Mr. Hanley: Everything I just said is the truth and I know that the hon. Gentleman will want to celebrate the success of our exports and inward investments in recent years.

Mr. Batiste: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the best way in which the Foreign Office can help British exports to Israel is by bringing the peace process back on the rails? Can he confirm that he is giving all help to Israel in supplying the information needed to deal with the threat from the Hamas terrorists? Is he encouraging the United States to do the same?

Mr. Hanley: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend that stability and growth in Israel and in the economies of both Israel and the Palestinians are vital in helping to underpin the peace process. Indeed, we are increasing our exports to Israel in a remarkably successful way and I pay tribute to all of those who have increased their efforts in recent years. The answer to the other point my hon. Friend raised is yes, we will of course supply such information as comes to us.

Mr. Fatchett: While every hon. Member applauds the efforts to increase British exports, will the Minister give us some sign of the priority that his Department attaches to the human rights record of a potential trading partner? For example, is he aware that the House was told that the Government's policy was to provide no specific encouragement to British firms to trade or invest in Burma—a country with an appalling human rights record? How does he square that with the fact that, only last week, the Government sponsored a trade mission to Burma, regardless of that country's human rights record? Is not he embarrassed by the statements by the Burmese opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, that the Government are more concerned with making money than with encouraging democracy and human rights in Burma? Is not it time that the Government stood for democracy and human rights, not just in Burma but throughout the world, and put it at the top of the list of priorities?

Mr. Hanley: Our absolute priority is to support democratic reform in Burma. We continue to make it clear to the State Law and Order Restoration CouncilSLORC—that the resumption of normal relations is conditional on progress in key areas, including human rights and political and economic reforms. We work very hard indeed leading the international community to help bring about change in Burma, and we will continue our efforts—including at the forthcoming session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It is entirely wrong to suggest that our support for reform in Burma is weakening just for commercial reasons. It is not.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend endorse the great importance of having defence attaches with a combination of adequate rank and sufficient


commercial nous to open doors at the right level in the countries to which they are posted? Will he work closely with his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the 400,000 jobs in this country that are dependent on defence exports are protected?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff overseas devote more than 42 staff years each year to promoting inward investment to all parts of the United Kingdom and securing jobs through exports. Eleven overseas posts have dedicated inward investment teams as well. He is right that the number of jobs that are secured in Britain by our efforts abroad is remarkable and has increased dramatically in recent years. In addition, he has put his finger on the point that our diplomats abroad are now often specially trained in trade matters. Many of our ambassadors and high commissioners have acted as specialist trade diplomats beforehand and they now regard trade as part of their diplomatic work and not just as a chore that they have to add to their diplomatic efforts.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the arrest of those held responsible for crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia. [17262]

Mr. Rifkind: We believe that those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law should be brought to justice. We strongly support the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Winnick: Is it intended that the implementation force should apprehend Karadzic and other criminals wanted by the international tribunal in The Hague? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that bringing such war criminals to justice would be a lesson for other war criminals such as those who are masterminding the terror in Israel against Israeli civilians—men, women and even young children? Perhaps they would be taught that, if they inflict such terror, the time will come when they will appear before the international tribunal at The Hague.

Mr. Rifkind: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, 52 persons have been indicted on a charge of alleged war crimes in Bosnia. If IFOR has the opportunity to arrest of any of those 52 persons, it is under a responsibility to do so. I am sure that it would carry out its responsibilities. I agree that any success in those matters would have a salutary effect in other parts of the world.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that those who have been indicted will, under the terms of the Dayton agreement, be ineligible to stand for any elected office?

Mr. Rifkind: That is indeed the case. It is clear that, under the Dayton accord, an alleged war criminal cannot stand for office in the forthcoming elections.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary mentioned that more than 50 Serbs and Croats have been indicted before the war crimes tribunal. Does he agree that it is unsatisfactory that only two have so far been arrested? Does he recognise that it is difficult for the public to understand that, with 60,000 troops in Bosnia, it is not possible for IFOR to arrest such high-profile figures as Mr. Karadzic, even when he passes through its checkpoints? Will he urge IFOR to accept that bringing the top war criminals to justice is not a distraction from its work, but central to any hope of restoring peace and reconciliation to Bosnia?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I do not think that there is any disagreement about the importance of apprehending alleged war criminals. Of course, there are practical problems that have to be taken into account. People such as Karadzic and Mladic ensure that they are well protected by heavily armed men when they move around. That is a practical consideration that must be borne in mind. I agree that IFOR must use any opportunity that presents itself to achieve their apprehension.

Iraq (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Her Majesty's Government first received reports relating to Iraqi nuclear weapons development programmes. [17263]

Mr. Rifkind: Although there had been suspicions for some years that Iraq had a programme for developing nuclear weapons, no evidence was found until the International Atomic Energy Agency's sixth inspection in Iraq in September 1991.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Secretary of State recall that, on 19 April 1990, when Saddam Hussein was known throughout the world to have three nuclear weapons programmes going, in answer to a question of mine to the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury that called for the IAEA to beef up its inspections of the nuclear weapons installations, I was told that inspections by the authority would not be increased and that, as Saddam Hussein had signed the non-proliferation treaty, the British Government had full confidence that he would abide by his international obligations and not develop nuclear weapons? Was that a misleading answer?

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to check Hansard to identify the precise words that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary used. With regard to evidence about the nuclear weapons aspirations of Iraq, it is to the IAEA that one must look. It had made five previous inspections and been unable to find evidence. Only on its sixth inspection, in September 1991—some time after the exchange to which the hon. Gentleman refers—did it report that it had discovered evidence that supported the claims.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a major problem with attempts to discover and confirm whether such programmes existed—although there was plenty of good, hard evidence that they did—was that many of the programmes were farmed out to neighbouring countries, such as Pakistan, which


undertook quite a lot of technology and research that was subsequently transferred to Iraq, and North Korea, which provided the launch technology? Does not that help to confuse the issue and confirm that proliferation is, and has been, taking place?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. For obvious reasons, the Iraqi Government wished to conceal any indication of their true intent. We know that they sought to conceal their efforts in many ways. It is interesting to note that the international community discovered only a few months ago the extent of the Iraqi Government's biological weapons programme, which they concealed for several years—even following the Gulf war. That is an example of the means that the Iraqi Government employed in an attempt to deceive the world.

Mrs. Clwyd: As the United Nations special commission has now given the British Government the names of British companies that supply the components of chemical and biological weapons and that have assisted in the nuclear warfare programme, what action do the Government intend to take against those companies? Such companies have been prosecuted in the United States and in Germany, but no prosecutions have yet occurred in this country. What will the Government do about that situation?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady will accept that prosecutions can take place only if there is evidence of a company having broken the law. Prosecutions are normally brought if there is such evidence.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Prime Minister Begin deactivated the Basra reactor in 1981? Should he not receive posthumous praise from the Foreign Office to compensate for the condemnation that he suffered then?

Mr. Rifkind: As I said earlier, we were suspicious of Iraq's true intentions for many years. I am not able to speculate about what hard evidence the Israeli Government may have had at that time. It is clear that they also had great suspicions but, if they had hard evidence, they did not share it with the rest of the world. It was inevitable, therefore, that their actions gave rise to criticism then.

Cyprus

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus dispute within the terms of United Nations Security Council resolutions. [17264]

Mr. David Davis: We remain committed to an active search for an overall settlement in Cyprus. The process of UN-led negotiations and discussions with both communities and the relevant decisions of the Security Council are at the heart of that search.

Mr. O'Hara: There is an increasing tendency to view the Dayton model as a possible way of achieving a solution to the Cyprus problem. Does the Minister agree that there is a danger that that would result in a quick fix

that would not produce a lasting solution? Will he give a commitment on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that any future negotiations regarding a solution to the problem—irrespective of whether they are founded on the Dayton model—will be based on existing United Nations resolutions and its set of ideas, with particular reference to one undivided island, one people, one federal Government and undivided sovereignty?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I addressed that issue during the Adjournment debate this morning. We believe that any achievements will be based on the United Nations' set of ideas and the notion of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. The hon. Gentleman made a very good speech in the debate this morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as did a number of my hon. Friends. The Government are pursuing every possible avenue towards achieving that end.

Sir George Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend tell me what incentive there is for the Greek Cypriot Government to reach an accommodation with the Turkish Cypriot community? As things stand, they benefit from the fiction that they govern the whole of the island, rather than just a part of it, and any international development aid to the island is channelled through them, to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriot community. Are not we more likely to achieve a settlement by adopting a more even-handed approach to the two communities?

Mr. Davis: It is a pity that my hon. Friend did not attend this morning's Adjournment debate, because a number of the virtues of settlement were put by hon. Members who were arguing the Greek Cypriot advantage. Therefore, his original premise does not stand. It is clearly in the interests of the whole island that there is a peaceful and lasting settlement of the problem.

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the prospects for stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina following the withdrawal of the implementation force. [17265]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): The key to lasting stability remains in the parties' hands. They have to support the peace agreement, implement it fully and maintain it after IFOR leaves. However, we shall be working with our allies and partners throughout the year to help maximise the prospects for stability after IFOR's withdrawal.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister face up to the fact that the timetable for the withdrawal of IFOR is unrealistic and dangerous? Even with the best will in the world—there is not much of that in Bosnia just now—it is almost certain that there will be a return to ethnic conflict if there is a withdrawal of international forces without proper safeguards, and a visible and credible international presence in 1997. It has taken four bloody years to get to where we are in Bosnia. Is it worth putting that peace in jeopardy just to keep to an artificial timetable that has been set to meet the American electoral cycle?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The best hope for peace in Bosnia is that we keep firmly to the timetable to which the hon. Gentleman referred—we have to keep the focus on peace firmly in place for the rest of this year. Recently, I visited Serbia and I spoke to President Milosevic. I believe that the pressure from Serbia and Croatia on the Bosnians to maintain peace will be very strong. I hope that we can withdraw IFOR at the end of this year as planned, and that we will then be able to take it forward with the civilian implementation that we look forward to helping them achieve.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that we shall be better able to assist political stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina after the withdrawal of the implementation force if the European Union has a co-ordinated foreign policy towards the country? Would not the Foreign Secretary's welcome and entirely sensible suggestion last night for a foreign policy co-ordinator for the European Union be a valuable contribution towards that objective?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal for a co-ordinator responsible to the Council of Ministers for the decisions made collectively by those Ministers. I hope that it will be of great assistance in achieving a lasting peace in Bosnia when IFOR withdraws at the end of the year.

Ms Quin: The Foreign Secretary, in his statement to the House on 22 November, talked about ending the arms embargo on Bosnia in two phases—the second of which will include artillery, heavy weapons, mines, and so on. In view of the horrific injuries that are inflicted on civilians in Bosnia because of land mines, will the Minister give a firm commitment that Britain, even after the ending of the arms embargo, will not export land mines to Bosnia? Will the Minister also give a commitment that he will play an active role within the European Union to ensure that European Union countries do not export land mines?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The United Kingdom resists any supply of such weapons in areas where they are likely to cause danger to civilian life, and that will continue. I cannot give an absolute assurance for the long term, but I give an assurance that so long as IFOR troops are there the United Kingdom will neither re-arm nor supply such weapons to any party in Bosnia.

Arms Exports

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines on the export of arms to individual countries are currently applied by his Department. [17267]

Mr. David Davis: It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We consider applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines and obligations to which we are committed.

Mr. Cohen: Paragraph D4.30 of the Scott report says that the former Prime Minister was inaccurate and misleading in parliamentary answers to me on the guidelines, and paragraphs D4.5, D4.6, D4.11 and D4.12, among others, refer to the untruthfulness of the then Foreign Minister. Therefore, how are Parliament and the public to know that the current guidelines are interpreted properly and have not been secretly changed, revised or flexibly interpreted? Until trust can be restored, would it not be best to have an open register, perhaps in the Library of the House of Commons, listing all the exports of weaponry or weapon-making equipment to countries that are in the guidelines?

Mr. Davis: I might surprise the hon. Gentleman. The DTI policy guidelines in such matters are under review. It will take a little time to conclude that review, but when it is concluded, I shall put a copy in the Library of the House of Commons.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department are currently working on matters related to the IGC. 117268]

Mr. Rifkind: We set up an intergovernmental conference unit last January. It has a staff of nine, including support staff. A number of other FCO officials in London and at European Union posts spend part of their time on intergovernmental conference issues.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Are any of those civil servants considering whether there should be a commitment in the IGC White Paper to a referendum on a single currency? If so, does he agree that such a commitment should be made and does he, therefore, support the rabid right of his party in demanding the sacking of the Chancellor?

Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference is concerned only with proposals to amend the treaty; therefore, questions relating to European monetary union will not arise.

Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is growing anger in Britain about the judgments and powers of the European Court of Justice? Will he make it a priority area for the IGC and will he introduce proposals urgently for the House of Commons and House of Lords to assert their rights against the ECJ, bearing it in mind that the German constitutional court limits ECJ judgments in Germany?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the terms expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday, it is clearly important to respond to the very unwelcome judgment that was made in the Factortame case. We have a number of ideas for improving the working of the European Court of Justice that we will submit to the intergovernmental conference. We are also willing to consider other ideas whereby both Houses of Parliament can have additional influence in seeking to ensure that the fundamental traditions and requirements of our country are taken into account.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Foreign Secretary made a number of interesting points in his speech in Paris yesterday. They included the idea that there should be a European Union figure to represent foreign policy. As he supports that view, is it the Government's view and will it be proposed at the IGC?

Mr. Rifkind: I said in my speech, and am happy to repeat, that on issues where British foreign policy coincides with that of other countries—for example, in the middle east, Hong Kong and other parts of the world—it is sensible to use the added weight of the European Union in furthering our interests. When 15 countries have committed themselves to a single foreign policy objective, it is necessary to co-ordinate that policy on a day-to-day basis. That is why we believe that the appointment of a civil servant or official to assist Foreign Ministers would be a useful innovation.

Mr. Dykes: As senior Ministers have promised yet again to become more enthusiastic about our membership of the European Union, instead of leaving it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or occasionally the Deputy Prime Minister, is it not important that my right hon. and learned Friend puts the record straight on the European Court of Justice, bearing it in mind that in the latest dispute on fishing matters, in order to dampen down the temperature of some of our colleagues, we should remind the public that many Spanish fishing boats are owned by British companies?

Mr. Rifkind: That is as may be, but there is a widespread belief which I am sure is shared on both sides of the House that the purpose of national quotas was to benefit national fishermen. In so far as that has not been the case, as a result of the decisions of the European Court of Justice, it is right and proper that the Government should give priority to seeking to rectify the position and ensuring that national quotas operate in the way that was clearly intended by the Council of Ministers when the policy was first introduced.

Mr. Robin Cook: May I commend to the Foreign Secretary the excellent leaflet by the Chemicals Industries Association entitled "Why Europe matters to you"? It warns that, if we are to keep chemical factories and jobs in Britain, we must take a positive role in Europe. Does the Foreign Secretary endorse that conclusion? If so, will he recommend another reading of the pamphlet to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who ripped up his copy when it was presented to him? On the verge of the IGC, will the Foreign Secretary take this last opportunity to advise some Conservative Members that it would be better if they rip up their prejudices before they break up Britain's business links with Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not had the pleasure of reading that leaflet, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will not tear it up before reading it. I will withhold judgment on what to do with it until I have read it.
On business links with Europe, the hon. Gentleman should consider the damage that would be done to our business interests by the imposition of the social chapter, as advanced by the Labour party. A couple of days ago, I was interested to read in the press that the Labour party is now in secret discussions about limiting its commitment

to implement the social chapter. It is clearly beginning to recognise the intense damage that the social chapter would do to British jobs. We hope that there will be an early opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House why the Labour party is now admitting what it has spent the past year trying to deny.

Taiwan and China

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his office has taken to reduce tension between Taiwan and China. [17270]

Mr. Hanley: We are very concerned about the increased tension in the Taiwan straits and its potential effect on the stability and development of the region. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised those concerns with the Chinese Premier, Li Peng, when they met in Bangkok on 29 February. We urge both sides to resolve their differences peacefully.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that extremely helpful and comprehensive reply. However, has he had an opportunity to read reports in today's press which give details about Chinese guided missile tests taking place in the Taiwan straits, with a resultant substantial increase in tension between China and Taiwan? Given the importance of China and Taiwan to that region, is my right hon. Friend able to place before those two nations the resources of his office in an effort to reach some form of mediated settlement?

Mr. Hanley: We certainly saw the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, and they are worrying. We will have to consider carefully what other steps we will take if there is a danger to shipping, for example, from such activities. The activities are regrettable. It would be far better if Taiwanese politicians lowered their rhetoric and if the Chinese Government lowered their overreaction.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that it would help to lower tension if China followed Taiwan in moving down the road to greater democracy and open elections, and that the free world at large is not terribly impressed by any attempt to be bully boys?

Mr. Hanley: Democracy in Taiwan is certainly an important development, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows how the British Government view the status of Taiwan. That view remains unchanged. It is sad that tension is rising during the democratic elections in Taiwan. We urge the Chinese not to overreact as a result.

European Union

Sir David Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the German Foreign Minister to discuss the future development of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [17271]

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend regularly discusses EU issues with his German counterpart.

Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the priorities for discussions with our German partners are the renegotiation of our respective budget contributions to the European Union, the cost of enlargement of the EU and the need to reform the common agricultural policy, and that those matters must take precedence over the question of a single currency?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend very accurately summarises the serious policy issues that run in parallel with the intergovernmental conference and that equate to it in importance. We must firmly address and resolve those issues before enlargement, which is probably the biggest single issue facing the EU for the next couple of decades.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, some months ago, the Germans put forward the idea of a Mr. Europe for foreign affairs? In fact, that was first proposed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who wants the job himself. Although we may congratulate the Foreign Secretary on trailing behind the Germans and French, it would be a pleasure if we had a Foreign Secretary who could take the lead in shaping Europe. Is not that job, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman endorsed yesterday, a perfect come-back job for the Governor of Hong Kong, Mr. Chris Patten—that solid pro-European, whom we would all welcome back to our Benches?

Mr. Davis: I start from the first point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, which is that the function is for an official, not a gifted politician. Secondly, it is for someone—not as suggested by Mr. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing—with no right of initiative, someone who has to obey what the Council says and who would represent our policies, not decide them.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, in his discussions with his German counterpart tomorrow, he will make it perfectly clear that the future development and security of the European Union depend very largely on the security arrangements that we make on a transatlantic basis?

Mr. Davis: I can give that undertaking without reservation. Throughout our dealings with the European Union, we have made it clear that we view NATO as the pre-eminent organ for protecting Europe and that a major part of that organisation is, of course, the transatlantic dimension which we will preserve at all costs.

Scott Report

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the findings of the Scott report relating to his Department. [17272]

Mr. Rifkind: Improvements in a number of areas identified in Sir Richard Scott's report are already in place or are under active consideration by Ministers and officials.

Mr. Hain: Despite the damaging criticisms on page after page of the Scott report to the effect that Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—who was

then a Foreign Office Minister—deliberately and designedly misled Parliament, why has no one in this arrogant Government even bothered to apologise?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might at least have had the courtesy to read the report before making such comments. He suggests that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary deliberately misled the House; Lord Justice Scott explicitly exempts my right hon. Friend from such a charge.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Government's priorities for the European Union's intergovernmental conference. [17273]

Mr. David Davis: The Government have set out their approach to the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in the House on a number of occasions. The forthcoming White Paper will provide a comprehensive review.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he give greater priority to introducing greater openness in the decision-making process within the various institutions of the European Union? If he agrees with that basic proposition, will he give some idea of how greater transparency could be introduced into the decision-making processes of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Davis: We are already at the forefront of increasing transparency in the European Union. So long as it is within our practical range, we are always willing to pursue that. By "practical range", I mean that I do not want to see transparency to the extent that it drives negotiations into corridors, which would be self-defeating. An example of what we have done is that, after each Council meeting, we always put down a parliamentary answer that reflects our votes and opinions in the Council.

Mr. Sumberg: Should not one of our priorities at the IGC be to deal with the widening gap between public opinion and Governments throughout the European Union? Would not that gap be closed in this country if we were to offer the people a referendum on any substantial change to the Maastricht treaty or if there were a single European currency?

Mr. Davis: The position on a single European currency has been made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I have already made clear our position on the IGC. I do not expect the IGC to create a major transformation of the Maastricht treaty. It should therefore not lead to a major constitutional change, which is usually the premise on which referendums are based. However, the idea of trying to bring together the Union and the peoples of the Union—trying to make people understand, or allowing them to understand, the benefits of the Union and what it is trying to do—is very much part of our strategy in dealing with the IGC and one that is crucial to the success and longevity of the European Union.

Mr. Skinner: When the Minister goes across to the next conference and, subsequently, to the intergovernmental conference, will he make it plain—it is time somebody did—that the majority of the British people are fed up to the back teeth with talk of federalism? They are fed up with fraud in the Common Market, they are fed up with the fisheries policy which is throwing thousands of people out of work, and they are fed up with all the talk about a single currency. The truth is that the threads that held the Common Market together are now falling apart. It has been an unmitigated disaster and it will be a good job when we have got rid of it.

Mr. Davis: I am not wholly clear whether the hon. Gentleman was addressing those remarks to me or to his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although my constituents feel annoyed when judgments from the European Court of Justice overrule sovereign law made by the House, they are maddened and enraged when retrospective judgments are made, especially those with the potential for large amounts of compensation? Will my hon. Friend make it a priority that this country should seek a treaty change at the IGC to outlaw all retrospective judgments of the European Court?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend may have seen some proposals that I put forward on behalf of the Government, when I attended the reflection group in the summer, for reform of the European Court of Justice. Two of the items put forward addressed directly the judgment that was made yesterday against us. One was about retrospectivity, and I shall supply a copy of the paper to my hon. Friend; indeed, it is in the Library. The other item made the point that Governments should not be subject to damages if they act in good faith or, in other words, they have not deliberately transgressed the law. Had we had that change before yesterday's decision—although that was not possible—it would not have arisen.
When those proposals were published, we did not get one jot of support from any of the Opposition parties, whatever hypocritical nonsense they produce in the next few days. They gave us no support on the solutions to those problems.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that, last week, the Foreign Secretary was good enough to meet an all-party delegation from the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats on behalf of the European Movement? The Foreign Secretary told us that the forthcoming governmental White Paper would be mature, constructive and positive and would make a serious contribution to the debate about the European Union. Given that, plus the Foreign Secretary's positive speech in Paris last night, with its interesting foreign policy ideas, could the Minister confirm that he now shares the new-found Euro-enthusiasm in the Foreign Office?

Mr. Davis: After my previous reply, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman stood up next, because he and his party are the best demonstration of the sort of unthinking Euro-centralism that will end up destroying faith in Europe, thereby undermining Europe's best achievements.

Sir Roger Moate: Will the White Paper clarify the role of the new European Union foreign affairs spokesperson? Will that person speak only when there is general agreement and then will he represent our views? In those circumstances, will our Foreign Secretary agree not to speak? What happens when there is disagreement? Is it then understood that the spokesperson will say nothing and our Foreign Secretary will be allowed to speak? Will my hon. Friend clarify the relative positions?

Mr. Davis: I venture to say that there are few circumstances in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary would undertake not to speak on matters that relate to the important interests of this country.
My hon. Friend should read the excellent speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend in Paris yesterday. It makes the status of that spokesman very clear: he will work solely under the control of the Council of Ministers, he will not have the right of initiative, and he will not be able to overrule individual countries because there will be unanimity at all points. In other words, he will be the servant of the Council of Ministers and, therefore, the servant of the national interests of all the countries of the European Union.

European Union

Mr. Betts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission to discuss the function of the European Union. [17284]

Mr. David Davis: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last met Mr. Santer on 28 January.

Mr. Betts: Was there discussion on that occasion of comments by the French European Affairs Minister, Mr. Barnier, that there was no possibility of agreeing in the intergovernmental conference to any expansion of the European Union without serious discussion of the possibility of extending to all countries that want to join the EU the veto on all matters that the veto currently covers? The French position appears to be that, if the British are not prepared to discuss the veto, the French are not prepared to discuss the expansion of the Union.

Mr. Davis: That is not the way that the matter was presented in the study group.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policies Her Majesty's Government will adopt at the forthcoming IGC on how best to enhance democracy and transparency within the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [17287]

Mr. David Davis: We are committed to making the European Union more transparent, and to enhancing democratic accountability—especially by increasing the role of national Parliaments in the European Union. We are considering a number of proposals to achieve that. including an idea proposed by the European Legislation


Committee of a minimum period for documents to be available for scrutiny by national Parliaments, with procedures for urgent legislation.

Mr. Salmond: Can the Minister tell me what will be the Government's strategy if they fail to renegotiate the fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Davis: I am tempted to say no, but the Government's strategy in respect of fisheries policy is straightforward and was set out by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. He said that we would take the matter to the IGC, if necessary; deal with it in other forums, if necessary; deal with treaty amendments, if necessary; and deal with protocol changes, if necessary. We will not be the only country in that position. Other countries suffer from quota hoppers, and those countries' interests are similar to our own.

Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend, to enhance transparency and democracy, have a word with the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on the White Paper before the IGC—not least because that would provide the Opposition with an opportunity to have their seventh, eighth, ninth or 10th European Union policy change?

Mr. Davis: I will relate my hon. and learned Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. My hon. and learned Friend is right, although I am not sure that he was talking about seven, eight or nine changes of policy in a decade or—the way that it is looking now—in a few months.

Mr. Gapes: Does the Minister agree that
Britain cannot stop or divert the rest of the Community taking what they believe to be the next logical steps"?
Those were the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, writing in 1989.

Mr. Davis: The Maastricht treaty is clear. Any changes to it can be only by consensus—by unanimity. In that, every country has a veto and an equal say, but the group cannot change without the consensus of the whole European Union.

Mr. Riddick: Returning to the proposed new foreign affairs spokesman, does my hon. Friend agree that there are already enough people in the European Union speaking on a range of issues and that we do not need yet another supremo—whatever he or she may say or whatever his or her brief may be?

Mr. Davis: This is the first time in history that my hon. Friend has been on the same side as the European Commission, because it does not like the proposal. One reason is that the proposed spokesman will not be a supremo but will be subordinate to the nation states of Europe—and that is the way it is going to stay.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ministerial Accountability

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to ensure that the principle of ministerial accountability is upheld. [17288]

Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Lady to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26 February.

Mrs. Clwyd: As Scott demonstrated time and again that Ministers were accountable neither to Parliament nor to the British people, will the Minister have a second go at answering the question that I asked him earlier? The United Nations special commission has given the Government details of the British companies that supplied chemical, biological and nuclear warfare components to the Iraqi people. What investigations are the Government undertaking into that information?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady's question relates to the prosecutions. She knows that prosecutions are not a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; therefore, she must make inquiries of the relevant authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Middle East (Peace Process)

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [17289]

Mr. Rifkind: Despite the recent tragic events in Israel, we very much hope that the peace process will continue to make progress.

Mr. Ross: The whole House will be glad that we have managed to reach this question, so that it can express its condolences to the families after the latest terrorist incidents in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the courage and vision shown by Prime Minister Peres in his determination to stick with the peace plan? Does he share the concern that we need to do more in the hiatus between now and 29 May, when Israeli elections will take place, to ensure that the peace negotiations continue, if at all possible? Will he join me in sending the best wishes of this Parliament to the inaugural session of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which will meet in Gaza tomorrow for the first time?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most impressive responses to these ghastly incidents was the demonstration by Palestinian women against terrorism, showing that they support the peace process pursued by Prime Minister Peres and President Arafat and by all those who have the best interests of Palestinians and Israelis at heart.

Common Fisheries Policy (Factortame Judgment)

Dr. Gavin Strang: (by private notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice as its affects Spanish and other fishing interests and the British taxpayer.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): It is helpful to have this opportunity to develop further the points that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I made yesterday in immediate response to the text of the Factortame judgment.
Let me first deal with the court's judgment. It is a stage, albeit an important one, in the action brought in the divisional court against Her Majesty's Government for damages in respect of the losses that Spanish and other owners of fishing vessels incurred as a result of their exclusion from the UK register and consequent inability to fish.
The divisional court sought guidance from the European Court, and the latter has now ruled that member states are obliged to make good damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law attributable to the state where the national legislature was responsible for the breach in question and where the breach is sufficiently serious. Importantly, the court also ruled that it is for national courts to decide whether such a breach has occurred and what damages are available.
There has been speculation about the damages that might be payable. It is far too early to comment, because it is for those involved—the Factortame applicants—to decide whether to proceed with their claim and, if so, to substantiate any claim to the full.
The court's judgments in this and the earlier Factortame cases have highlighted the fact that quotas allocated to each member state do not always benefit the fishing communities of that member state. That is because the eligibility for quotas and their administration by member states have to take account of general treaty provisions—for example, on the right of establishment and the freedom of movement. That has certainly undermined the benefit that the United Kingdom fishing industry has been able to secure from the fishing opportunities available to it under the common fisheries policy.
It is clear that we should not go on as we are. That is why both the Deputy Prime Minister and I explained to the House yesterday that the Government are looking at all the options. They include pursuing treaty or other changes at the intergovernmental conference. We want to achieve measures that enable member states to ensure that fishing opportunities arising from their national quota provide real benefits to their own fishing communities and not to others.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is deep anger throughout our fishing communities at this judgment? Surely he is aware that it will be very hard indeed to persuade British taxpayers that it is a justifiable use of their money. Is not this another demonstration of the indefensible workings of the common fisheries policy?
May I put two specific questions to the Minister? First, does he now accept that the relevant provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 were ill advised? It is true that we all wanted the legislation to succeed in preventing quota hopping—[Interruption.] That is what we wanted, but let me ask the Minister a legitimate question. Did any of the advice that he received—and the Government surely have access to a great deal of advice—give the slightest indication that we could be liable for compensation of this nature? [Interruption.] That is a perfectly reasonable question.
Secondly, we welcome the Government's declared intention of raising the matter at the forthcoming European intergovernmental conference, but can the Minister confirm that by that he means securing an amendment to the treaty, and that such an amendment will require unanimity—that one member state, Spain, for example, will be able to block it?
Finally, may I point out that there is great demoralisation throughout our fishing communities, to which this incident can only add? That demoralisation should be a matter of great concern to the House of Commons. We cannot go on like this.

Hon. Members: What would you do?

Mr. Hogg: The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman does go on like this. I interpret his response as a pretty ungracious gesture of support for the Government, but in so far as he did support our decision, I welcome that support. As I have made plain, we shall do what we can to ensure that changes are made in the treaty if necessary, so that quota hoppers cannot take advantage of national quotas.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the 1988 Act. Let me tell him that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was the Opposition spokesman at the time, strongly endorsed the Act. The hon. Gentleman spoke at length about the failure of the common fisheries policy, and about quota hopping in particular. His observations would have more force if his party had even mentioned the common fisheries policy in its 1992 election manifesto—or, for that matter, in its 1994 Euro-manifesto.

Mr. David Harris: I warmly welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government are trying to do, especially in the context of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. Will he confirm that this step represents a real turning point in our dealings with Europe and, indeed, our handling of the common fisheries policy?
This dreadful, diabolical decision by the European Court—along with all that led up to it—has rightly enraged our fishermen. It has also united hon. Members who take different views on Europe, including Euro-sceptics in my party and people such as me who regard themselves as pragmatic Europeans. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also confirm that we have one tremendous fight on our hands if we are to bring about the necessary changes? Will he assure us that the move has the backing of the Prime Minister and the whole Government, and that the Government are determined to see it through in the interest of justice for our fishing industry?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, and for the thought that he has devoted to the problem


over many years. He has frequently spoken of the need to deal with quota hopping by means of treaty changes; as he will note, we are responding to his suggestions.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that the negotiations will be difficult: there is not a united view in the Council. Let me give a specific answer to his question, however. The policy has indeed been strongly endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed yesterday.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Of course the Labour party backed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and it was right to do so. What now concerns us is that it appears that Spanish owners, or other owners for that matter, can improperly sue us for loss of trade. Although there is shared anger among hon. Members on both sides of the House about what has happened, I am not sanguine about the Government's chances of changing things at the IGC or elsewhere as, the last time the Spanish were involved in fishing discussions, the Government were weak-kneed, caved in and gave the Spanish early access to Irish waters. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that, when discussions take place, the Government will not trade off some bargain to avoid such disputes, by giving the Spanish further access?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not try to dissociate himself from the 1988 legislation, because I have the copies of Hansard here in which he gave vigorous support to that legislation. The Labour party would have cut a better figure had it chosen just to mention the common fisheries policy in either its 1992 or its 1994 manifesto. Labour Members are Johnnies come lately to this business.

Mr. David Porter: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the cause of this deplorable state of affairs is not so much that the Government tried to do something about it with the Merchant Shipping Act, but that we have the phrase, "The seas are a common resource, open to all"? Only when we get rid of that can we begin to reassert the sovereignty of British fishing waters, and we need to do it quickly while there is still some industry left to save.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for what the Government have announced. He is right to draw attention, by implication, to the importance of safeguarding the six and 12-mile limits, and that is our intention. The court has come to its judgment as a consequence not just of the common fisheries policy, but of the general treaty provisions that provide for other member state nationals to set up business in the United Kingdom. It is the overlap between the CFP and the treaty of Rome, and not the Single European Act, which has given particular difficulty in this case.

Mr. James Wallace: I accept that we also supported the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and I agree with the Minister that the Factortame judgment is inconsistent with the principle of relative stability that is at the heart of the common fisheries policy. I welcome the fact that he intends to take the matter to the IGC. What proposals does he hope to make there, which the British Government could not have made when we had the European Union presidency in 1992,

when the CFP was under review? Has he considered what other countries have done? Any Spanish vessel with a British licence has it only because a British skipper has sold it. Why do other countries not have the same problem? Given that the veto will apply to Spain as well as to Britain, does he believe that a renegotiation of the CFP will be easier or more difficult with the continuation of the veto?

Mr. Hogg: I have already said that Labour Members are Johnnies come lately to this business. I have to say—although it gives me pleasure to do so—that the Liberal Democrats can be accused of being Johnnies come lately as well, because their 1992 manifesto and 1994 Euro-manifesto make no reference to the problems of quota hopping. They are simply opportunist in this matter. As to what we shall seek to do in the IGC, it is important for us to try to negotiate, within the context of the IGC, an agreement to the effect that there needs to be a close identity of interest between the ownership of the vessels that are taking advantage of national quotas and the country whose national quotas are being drawn on.

Sir Michael Spicer: Is not the relevant issue at stake the power of the European Court of Justice to make laws superior to those of national Parliaments? Should we not amend the treaty in that respect? Is not the relevance of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 the fact that it was passed precisely to counteract the judgment of the court, but that after the Factortame case it failed to do so?

Mr. Hogg: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Two questions arise. The first relates to the judgment itself. If we put the Factortame question to one side for a moment, there is much in the judgment that we would welcome in the context of pursuing the single market, notably the fact that it enables nationals of member states whose rights are infringed by another member state's legislature to seek compensation for damage. I can identify a particular case—for example, the United Kingdom beef producers, who are adversely affected by the actions of the German Government or Lander. It is at least possible that they may have a claim as a result of the judgment, and that is a good thing. As for my hon. Friend's other question, the problem lies essentially not with the European Court, but with the treaty. The court is there to interpret the treaty, so if we are to remedy the problem, we must seek to change the treaty itself, either by amendment or by protocol.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: As I am the son of a fisherman and a fishergirl, I hope that the Minister will not accuse me of being a Johnny come lately to the fishing industry. Successive Administrations, with the common fisheries policy, are largely to blame for the parlous condition of the British fishing fleet. May I offer the Minister a practical suggestion? Will he give the House an assurance that at the IGC he will argue for the freedom of establishment to be circumscribed and the concept of relative stability to be emphasised? I hope that he can get across to his colleagues at the IGC and in the Council of Fisheries Ministers the fact that relative stability would help our fishing industry enormously. That is what the fishing industry argued for in 1987.

Mr. Hogg: I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman as an individual of being a Johnny come lately. I accept that he has a long-standing interest in the matter. However, I accuse his party of being Johnnies come lately, and for good reasons.
The hon. Gentleman is right that relative stability needs to be emphasised, and we take every opportunity, such as that offered by the interim review of 1992, to do just that. As for what we seek to achieve within the IGC, obviously we must formulate our negotiating position against the background of what we are likely to get allies for. In broad terms, as I said, we seek to achieve a close relationship between ownership of the vessel and the country upon whose fishing quotas it draws. That is what we seek, although it represents another way of expressing the same thing, when we talk in terms of economic benefit. Clearly, there must be a close relationship between the vessels drawing on national quotas and the countries to which those quotas belong.

Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government will have no alternative but to pay compensation, funded by the British taxpayer, if the British courts find in the Spanish fishermen's favour? Does he agree that the decision is not untypical of decisions by the European Court, which consistently overrules the sovereignty of the House? I welcome his proposal to try to secure changes at the IGC, but will the Government be completely ruthless and threaten to veto everything else unless they get their way? But if they are not successful at the IGC, what will they do? Will we have to sit and watch our fishing industry die?

Mr. Hogg: On compensation, as I said earlier, it is for the applicants to prove first that there is a breach, secondly that they have suffered loss, and thirdly the quantum of that loss. Until those three elements are proved, there is no liability to pay compensation. As for parliamentary sovereignty, I return to the central point: the court seeks to interpret treaty obligations. For that reason, if we are to be effective in achieving what we would like to achieve, we must seek to bring about change in the treaty itself.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Minister must recognise that the European Court of Justice decision adds insult to injury in this country, especially affecting our fishermen. Furthermore, it illustrates the total humiliation of Parliament that we suffered when the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was struck down by the European Court. We must be frank with ourselves and the country. It is no good the Minister saying that he can go to the IGC and plead with it to make amendments to the common fisheries policy. Whether it is decided by unanimity or by a qualified majority, there are overwhelmingly good reasons why other European countries should relish the common resource of British fishing. We shall therefore get nothing from that.
Will the Minister face that fact, get on to the real issue and be prepared to take any action, including the denunciation of the part of the treaty that affects our fishing, so that we can restore our self-respect and the control of our own resources?

Mr. Hogg: I have a great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have known in this place for 19 years

or thereabouts. I always have a high regard for what he says, but I am bound to say that I do not agree entirely with what he has just said. Of course, the negotiations will be tough. I certainly do not exclude the possibility that we shall be able to make alliances on the matter with other countries that also face the problem of quota hopping. We shall try to make such alliances on the issue.
I cannot commend to the right hon. Gentleman the policy of denouncing the common fisheries policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am just going to say why. First, I do not think that it is achievable in real politics. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Of course it is."] Secondly, it is probably undesirable. For both those reasons, I am against it. Although all of us dislike the judgment in so far as it relates to the common fisheries policy—the Factortame situation—it has the advantage of promoting the single market, as I described to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North.

Mr. John Wilkinson: How many more humiliations will our country have to face at the hands of the European Union before Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the common fisheries policy—that they have no hope at the forthcoming IGC of amending the treaty, because the other countries will not agree it? So long as European law has primacy over British law, there will not be remedy, even in our own courts. Will the Government therefore do the honest and proper thing and give notice at the IGC of our intention to withdraw from the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Hogg: The negotiations will be tough—nobody tries to pretend otherwise—and it is possible that we shall not succeed. I am not trying to conceal that from the House. I shall certainly not start the negotiations on the assumption that we are bound to lose. That is not my opinion.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Why not?

Mr. Hogg: "Why not?" I hear from behind me. I shall say why not. We have an extremely good case to make. There is no doubt that quota hopping derogates from the principle of national quotas. That is an extremely good argument to make, and we shall make it vigorously.
Denouncing the common fisheries policy is an illusion. First, it would be almost impossible to achieve; secondly, we would have to make such concessions as to make it unlikely to be in our interests; and thirdly, we would be in a demandeur position in many bilateral negotiations, where we would want to try to trade access to other people's waters. In my view, people should not peddle such an illusion.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Minister looked at the report of the Committee debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill on 18 February 1988. when both the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I argued that the Government should not rely on a nationality requirement on ownership to stop the quota hoppers, but should impose a residential requirement on the crews of such vessels?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have the humility to accept that not taking that advice might have been an expensive blunder? It has been expensive, not in


terms of what the Spanish will get from the English courts, but in terms of the lost fishing opportunities for Scottish and English fishermen in the past five years. The Government are to call for treaty changes at the IGC. Why did they not do so five years ago, when the quota hoppers got back on the register and started pillaging the stocks once again? Why was the matter not a priority at that time?

Mr. Hogg: That question is of the normal quality that I have come to expect from the hon. Gentleman. His principal claim is that we should have applied a crewing criterion, but that would have been manifestly illegal.

Mr. Christopher Gill: All hon. Members who have taken an interest in the fortunes of the British fishing industry will welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to seek treaty changes at the forthcoming IGC, and his decision will be applauded by the general public and by the fishing industry. When he meets our European partners at the IGC, will he stress that what is at stake is not just a vital British interest, but the supremacy of national Parliaments and the survival of the fishing stocks?

Mr. Hogg: During the negotiations, my right hon. and hon. Friends will assert the importance of giving real effect to the concept of national quotas, which in my view is being abrogated by the practice of quota hoping. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) asks me to recognise that there will be general applause for what I have said. Although I welcome general support, I particularly welcome his support.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: The Minister referred to the Committee debates on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, but he quoted selectively from them. Will he confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) warned the Government on behalf of the Opposition that the provision would fall foul of European law? The Government were warned, but ignored that. Is not that why we have the present debacle?

Mr. Hogg: I have not been quoting selectively. I have before me a copy of the Second Reading speech made by the hon. Gentleman who led for the Opposition—the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North—in which he made it plain that the Opposition gave us their wholehearted support and expressed the hope that the regulations would be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Robert Hughes: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Through no fault of his own, my pright hon. and learned Friend is fast approaching a rock and a hard place. He must honour his obligations either to the European Union or to the people of this kingdom, but he cannot do both. In what way will he resolve the matter?

Mr. Hogg: I am not such a pessimist as my hon. Friend. Quota hopping seems clearly to derogate from the principle of national quotas. Almost every hon. Member

accepts that and, as it is a rational argument, there is a good chance that we shall get people outside the House to accept it also. We shall certainly do our utmost to achieve that highly desirable objective.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it any wonder that the British people are full of cynicism about the Government and about politics generally when an issue such as this stares them in the face? We are an island nation, surrounded by fish—and anyone can get the fish, bar the British. Fishermen have been chucked on the scrap heap. Why does not the Minister face up to the only realistic thing that can be done, and tell those tinpot people in the Common Market that we shall withdraw from the CFP? There could be some debris floating in the wake of that decision—we should leave the Spanish and the rest to clean it up.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman gets more eccentric with age. He has almost reached retirement age, and he should take his own advice and go as soon as possible.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's particular points, to start off with, he would like us to leave the common fisheries policy. I have already made the case for not doing so. In any event, there is a gulf, as there is between himself and no doubt many of the people in the Labour party, between him and those on the Labour Front Bench. They are riven top to bottom on the subject.

Mr. Barry Field: I served on the Standing Committee that considered the 1988 Act. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it ill behoves the Liberal Democrats to lecture the Government today when they could hardly put in a full day's attendance on that Committee? Is not it a fact that we are no longer elected to the high court of Parliament? This House has been reduced to an annexe of Brussels, and it is a very sad day. It is frustrating our fishermen and the British people.

Mr. Hogg: And that is why my hon. Friend supports so enthusiastically the policy position that I have just announced—that is, a desire and intent within the context of the IGC to renegotiate, if need be, the part of the treaty that would tackle the problem of quota hoppers.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: But is not all this insecurity in the industry and the failure of Parliament and the Government properly to deal with Spanish access completely undermining confidence in the industry? So much so, that constituents of mine who are trawler owners are told when they approach the banks that they are no longer prepared to lend because they have no confidence in the industry. Should not Ministers be trying to restore some of the banks' confidence, so that trawler owners can look into the future with some hope?

Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that there is a great deal of anxiety in the fishing industry, but the essential reason is the fact that fish stocks are falling and there are too many vessels chasing what there is in the water. That is the essential problem, and until it can be addressed satisfactorily—it will be extremely difficult to do so and it will certainly involve multinational action of many kinds—the hon. Gentlemen's constituents and his constituents' bankers will be lacking confidence.

Sir Hector Monro: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's strong stand and efforts to


resolve the issue. Does he accept that quota hoppers are fishing in our waters with our quota only because of a decision of the European Court, and now they want compensation on top of that? I think that he has the backing of the whole House to go to Europe and resolve the matter in the interests of our United Kingdom fisherman.

Mr. Hogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support that he has just given. There are few people in the House who know more about fisheries policy than my right hon. Friend, who had a responsibility for that function for many years when in the Scottish Office. I find his support particularly welcome.

Ms Joan Walley: Why will the Minister not agree that he is quoting selectively from Hansard? It is a question not just of the Second Reading debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill in 1988, but of the Committee stage of the Merchant Shipping (Registration Etc.) Bill in 1993, when Conservative members along with other members of the Committee pressed the Government to deal with the Factortame case. The Minister could have dealt with it then.

Mr. Hogg: I am bound to say that that is whingeing and whining of a particularly ungracious kind. I know that the Labour party is on the hook on this matter. The Opposition want us to accept that they have been treating the matter seriously, yet there was not a word about it in their 1992 manifesto or in their 1994 Euro-manifesto. I refuse to take them seriously, because they are not serious people.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is not one of those things that the Foreign Office should see as some technical matter requiring a bit of deft footwork, to overcome a temporary problem? This is one of those watershed moments. My right hon. and learned Friend and the Fisheries Minister started off like bulldogs. Let us all hope that neither the Foreign Office nor the Commission will convert them into poodles. If they become poodles, the fishermen and others may demand that they take a visit to the vets, with a rather nasty outcome. My right hon. and learned Friend should say no, no, and no again, because the more unpopular he becomes in Brussels, the more popular he and our Fisheries Minister will become in this country. He should recognise this moment for what it is and dare to be popular.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right that this is not an occasion for subtle or diplomatic approaches. That is probably why I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have charge of this business; we shall not be guilty of either.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the root cause of the problem is that the common fisheries policy, as negotiated in the early 1980s, was not subject to unanimity, and that the matter was not discussed in Committee or at any other stage during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972? Moreover, Ministers of the Crown deliberately and

designedly misinformed Members of both Houses, as was pointed out at the time by the late Lord Jay. The fact that we were delivering ourselves into the hands of qualified majority voting from that time was obscured from the British public and from our fishermen. If the Minister does not agree, will he look up the record and confirm what I have said, or let me know where I have made a mistake?

Mr. Hogg: If there was real substance in what the hon. Gentleman was saying, it is passing strange that the then Labour Prime Minister, Lord Wilson, did not put the matter on his renegotiation agenda.

Mr. Michael Stephen: Is not the Factortame case yet another example of judges in the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights—and even our own judges—using their powers of interpretation to second-guess almost everything that the Government do? Is it not time for the House to send a clear message to the judges that the sovereign authority in this land is Parliament and no one else?

Mr. Hogg: Speaking generally, the business of judges is to interpret treaties or Acts. It is not the business of judges, as a general proposition, to determine policy. Although the matter goes rather wide of the subject, I agree that where judges seek to determine policy rather than to interpret statute, they exceed the powers that the House expects them to discharge.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is it not true that when an advocate resorts to bluster and insult, it usually means that he has a weak case? Will the Minister respond directly to a direct question: in relation to compensation, can he say directly whether the Cornish boats that were damaged in the so-called tuna war and claimed compensation from the Spanish authorities 18 months ago have or have not received full compensation?

Mr. Hogg: That is a serious matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to a claim for about £100,000. I raised it personally with the then Spanish Minister on several occasions. We have got an assurance that the Spanish Government will make a payment. I very much regret that we have not yet received it, although it was, of course, a socialist Government. Now that the socialist Government have been excluded from office, perhaps we shall receive rapid payment.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In a spirit of helpfulness, and as the whole House wishes to get behind his rhetoric about saying no to the judgment, may I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that, to send a serious message to both the Commission and our partners in Europe, we should put a one-clause Bill through Parliament, which blocks off access of the courts to the judgment? That will demonstrate to the courts and the European Community that we mean business when we go to the IGC. He will have full support for that.

Mr. Hogg: That is an interesting proposition, but it might have the unfortunate effect of preventing British litigants from suing, for example, the German Government in the German courts.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the rule of law and the authority of any court flow partly from a broad public acceptance that the court is acting fairly and justly, and that, if any court makes manifestly unfair judgments too often, that court might begin to sow the seeds of its own destruction?

Mr. Hogg: I think that my hon. Friend is probably right about the general proposition. However, I am not sure that I would apply it to this judgment. The fault lies not with the European Court, but with the treaty. Whatever else may be clear, the European Court must interpret the treaty and we can hardly blame it for doing so. That is why we are seeking changes.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If the Government lost a case before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, would my right hon. and learned Friend expect the Minister concerned to describe it publicly as "crazy" and the House of Commons to be up in arms, or would he expect a rather more respectful attitude to be adopted towards a judicial decision? Is it not clear from the attitude of the Minister, the House and the public that none of us accords to European law the same respect that we accord to domestic law? Is it not also clear that, in the end, we, as a nation, will disobey the laws of the European Union and that that will be part of the route towards a looser relationship between us and Europe?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is being somewhat disingenuous. He and I have practised for years at the common law Bar and we have appeared before many judges—some wise and some foolish. When we received foolish judgments, he and I never hesitated to say so.

Emergency and Intensive Care

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, I would like to make a statement about the emergency and intensive care services of the national health service.
The health service exists to provide health care to those with a clinical need. No aspect of its work is more important than its capacity to respond promptly and effectively to emergency need as and when it arises. This winter has seen those emergency services put under considerable strain. At times of peak pressure, some parts of the country have seen increases in the emergency work load of up to 20 per cent. compared with the same period last year.
In those circumstances, resources have inevitably been stretched, but, despite the pressure, the clinical needs of the overwhelming majority of patients have been met. That is a testament to the skills and dedication of the professional staff of the NHS. All of us, and particularly those who have needed to rely on the emergency services, owe them a debt of gratitude.
I told the House earlier this year that I would undertake to ensure that we learn the proper lessons from the general pressure on the emergency services this winter. I shall set out to the House this afternoon the steps that I am taking to ensure that that happens. First, it is important to separate consideration of emergency care from consideration of intensive care: they are separate, although related, issues.
Taking emergency services first, I have today charged the chief executive of the NHS with a specific responsibility of reporting to me at the end of June and again at the end of September on the plans being made by each health authority for emergency services in its area. The chief executive has written to all health authorities and trusts setting out the ground that he expects those plans to cover. In the short term, they will need to show how resources will be managed to meet short-term fluctuations in the work load. They will need to consider the use of admission wards; improving access for patients in the accident and emergency department to hospital diagnostic facilities; the relationship with local social service departments; and a number of other issues that have been shown by experience to contribute to the efficient running of emergency services.
Health authorities must also address a number of longer-term issues. First, they need to consider how they intend to strengthen the purchasing function in emergency care in order to bring a clearer focus on patients' expectations of those services. Secondly, a considerable amount of work must be done in work force planning for A and E services.
Thirdly, I have asked the chief medical officer to undertake a review of emergency care services outside hospital. It is important that health authorities plan for a full range of services, and do not rely only on hospital accident and emergency departments.
Finally, in relation to emergency services, there is one measure of quality of service about which most patients feel strongly: the time spent waiting in an accident and emergency department. The patients charter already contains a standard that calls for a person's immediate


assessment on arrival in the department. The chief executive's review of health authority plans for the emergency services will also examine the scope for developing other standards that are understandable by patients and accepted by the professional staff as relevant indicators of quality.
I turn now to intensive care provision. Today I am publishing the report of a professional working group that has been examining best practice in the use of intensive care. The report underlines the need for a clearer professional consensus on the most effective use of intensive care facilities, and it sets out proposals for the development of that consensus. It also stresses the importance of specific discussions between health authorities and trusts about the allocation of resources to intensive care. Decisions about the resourcing of intensive care cannot be subsumed into general arrangements for other areas.
The report makes two other important recommendations. First, it recommends that plans for intensive care services should make provision for high-dependency beds that can offer care that is more intensive than ward-based care, but less intensive than a fully staffed intensive care unit.
The report concludes that, in those hospitals that have them, these intermediate facilities relieve the pressure on the intensive care unit with the result that NHS resources, both human and financial, are used more effectively. I shall be looking to health authorities to apply these findings in their own areas.
Secondly, the report recommends that the case for a national database to improve the management of intensive care bed availability should be examined. There is no doubt that the emergency bed service has been responsible for a major improvement in intensive care bed management in London and in the south-east since the system was extended last spring. The NHS will now be considering the proposal for a national register, and I shall announce the conclusion of that process this summer.
Finally, I turn to paediatric intensive care. The report of the inquiry into the treatment of Nicholas Geldard, which was published yesterday, highlighted some important failures in the service that he received. The sympathy of all hon. Members will go to Nicholas's family, who have suffered a tragic loss. The north-west region of the NHS has already made clear its determination to address the local issues that were highlighted by the report.
The main national issue that arose from the case was the availability of paediatric intensive care beds. The NHS is already committed to increasing this provision. I agree with the finding of the inquiry that
the time for talk and discussion about this issue … is over".
I have asked the chief executive to prepare a specific report on the implementation of these plans. It will be presented by the end of April, and it will be published.
Health authorities have a difficult task in balancing the competing priorities of different parts of the NHS. This year is not yet 10 weeks old, and already the House has considered three important aspects of health care in its debates: the emergency services, the mental health services and the primary health sector. The hospital

service must also meet the needs of patients who are put on waiting lists. These are all important services, and patients' needs must be met.
The Government have already announced that the real revenue resources of the NHS will increase next year by £500 million—that is new money available to increase the level of care available to NHS patients. The process that I have announced today will allow us to ensure that a proper proportion of that growth money is used to address the needs of the emergency patient, whose needs must be met without sacrificing the other important objectives of the national health service. I commend them to the House.

Ms Harriet Harman: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. On the casualty crisis, I welcome the fact that he has adopted three of the proposals in the five-point plan that I set out following his statement in January. Although he rubbished our proposals at the time, now—three months later—he says that he will monitor the problems carefully.
Will the Secretary of State please report to the House on the information that he receives from the chief executive in June and September? He says that someone will be appointed in each area to examine how local resources can best be used to address the problem and that specific attention will be paid to those people who are in hospital, but who could be cared for at home or in residential care.
We welcome all that, but the right hon. Gentleman has still failed to address two central problems in the casualty crisis. First, it is the cuts in hospital beds that leave patients waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. Whatever his charters say, why can we not have a moratorium on bed closures? Secondly, there is still a shortage of accident and emergency staff. He said that health authorities must undertake work force planning, but does he plan to do anything about it?
It is hard to find words to express the sense of outrage and betrayal that everyone must feel on hearing how 10-year-old Nicholas Geldard died. The North West regional health authority inquiry team was shocked and dismayed by what happened to him. Although there are many organisational failures that the Secretary of State must address, does he acknowledge that the Geldard inquiry team concluded that, while Nicholas's life was hanging by a thread, no intensive care bed could be found for him, so he had to be taken by ambulance across the Pennines through a blizzard in the small hours of the morning?
Will the Secretary of State admit that the Geldard report confirms that it was not a one-off, tragic case, but that, every week in the north-west, children are turned away because there are no intensive care beds for them? Will he admit that the problem is not only in the north-west, but throughout the country?
Is it not the case that, having heard what happened to Nicholas Geldard, every parent in the country thought, "That could have been my child—it could have been me"? Every parent in the country will now fear that, if a child falls ill, the NHS might not be there.
Will the Secretary of State tell us how many children are turned away from intensive care units throughout the country each day? Should he not give the House that information today?
Why, when the Government trumpet patients charters for dozens of minor NHS procedures, will they not guarantee an intensive care bed for a child who is gravely ill? Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the shortage of intensive care beds means that patients face cancellations of heart operations—sometimes repeatedly? How many patients each year have operations cancelled because of the lack of intensive care beds? Is that not information that he, as Secretary of State, should know? Should he not tell the House today?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that patients waiting for transplants die because, when an organ becomes available, the operation cannot go ahead if there are no intensive care beds? Is not the final irony the fact that, although seriously ill patients are waiting for liver transplants, Leah Betts' liver could not save a life in Britain, but had to be flown to Spain?
The NHS must have the spare capacity to respond to emergencies. The Government do not understand that it is not slack in the system; it is a safety margin. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what he believes is the safe occupancy level for intensive care beds? Many operate at up to 100 per cent. occupancy. The Intensive Care Society believes that there should be an occupancy level of no more than 70 per cent. Does he agree with that?
Today, the Secretary of State says that he will publish another report in April, but have there not been numerous reports on intensive care? Eight years ago, the Association of Anaesthetists for Great Britain and Ireland produced a report entitled "Intensive Care Services: Provision for the Future".
In December 1993, a report was published by the British Paediatric Association's working party on intensive care and, on behalf of the Department of Health itself, came the Metcalf McPherson report. The problem is not that there have not been enough reports; the problem has been the lack of action.
Will the Secretary of State admit that there are not enough intensive care beds, and tell us how many more he believes there should be? The Intensive Care Society says that we have only 1,500 such beds but that we need 2,000. Does the Secretary of State agree with the society?
The Secretary of State referred to high-dependency beds, but will he admit that the development of such beds, although welcome, does not solve the problem of too few intensive care beds? Why does he fail to acknowledge and tackle the shortage of specially trained intensive care nurses? That failure is a disgrace and an insult to doctors, as they are the ones who have to turn away very sick patients, knowing that it might cost those patients their lives. Doctors have to make those decisions every day, yet the Secretary of State implies that they have to do so because they are somehow mismanaging their beds. The plain fact is that there are not enough beds.
Does the Secretary of State remember that the NHS changes were the Government's response to the 1988 intensive care beds crisis? The Government imposed the internal market on the NHS, with the result that there were more managers than ever before, but the problems got worse.
Why does the Secretary of State think that providing more managers is the answer to every problem in the NHS? A sick child needs a hospital bed, not a manager. Why should anyone be turned away from intensive care

when an extra £1.5 billion is being spent on managers? Does the Secretary of State recognise that this is a question not of technicalities but of fundamental principle—the principle that, in an emergency, one can count on the NHS?
We cannot accept that a critically ill person whose life could be saved should be turned away. This more than anything else symbolises the Tories' failure on the NHS—if they cannot run the emergency service, how can the NHS be safe in their hands? Why does not the Secretary of State understand that it is not a matter for managerial adjustment, fiddled figures or more reports? Now is the time for him to face up squarely to the depth of the crisis and take action. If he cannot, he should not be running the NHS.

Mr. Dorrell: The final point that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made in her long tirade was very close to the final point that I made. I quoted the report on the availability of paediatric intensive care beds and said:
the time for talk and discussion about this issue … is over".
That is precisely why I have set up a process that will demonstrate publicly by the end of April the delivery of our targets for the availability of paediatric intensive care beds. There is no doubt about the need now to deliver a proper level of paediatric intensive bed space. It will be done and accounted for to the House by the end of April.
The hon. Lady began by welcoming a number of the announcements I made about the emergency services. I am grateful to her for that. She asked what was being done about staff in accident and emergency departments. She might like to know that, since 1990—this information is not based on some politically convenient figure—there has been an increase in the number of doctors and nurses committed to accident and emergency care. That shows that we have been increasing staffing resources, and we shall continue to ensure that staffing resources available to accident and emergency departments are sufficient.
The hon. Lady was confidently expecting at the end of last year that there was going to be a shortage of junior doctors at 1 February this year, when the rotations came through the accident and emergency departments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health took action just before Christmas to ensure that there would be sufficient junior doctors to man accident and emergency departments.

Ms Harman: There are not.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that there are not, but we have conducted a census of accident and emergency departments. Senior house officer vacancies are currently running at 4.5 per cent., which does not imply a service with a massive inability to recruit.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her welcome for the steps we are taking to strengthen the emergency services and to ensure that the lessons which must be learned from this winter's experience are learned. The hon. Lady was keen to argue that we need more intensive care beds.
If it were true that we had 1,500 intensive care beds in the health service, the hon. Lady would be right, but we have 2,500 intensive care beds—as I published in a parliamentary answer to her predecessor—including beds that provide coronary care. Every definition of intensive care facilities includes those that are used for planned


surgery need as well as those that meet emergency need. That is precisely why I said in my statement that it is important to distinguish the emergency services from the intensive care service, which meets both emergency and planned need. We have 2,500 intensive care beds in the health service.
There is not much point in setting up a review engaging the professional expertise of those who work in the service, as we have done, and then ignoring its conclusions. The conclusion of the professional review, which I am publishing today, is that the best way to ensure that we meet intensive care need in the health service is to provide the high-dependency beds—which I mentioned in my statement—behind the intensive care facilities.
I would have hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome that provision as a step towards the delivery of an intensive care service for adults and children that will meet the needs for intensive care of the emergency patient and the planned patient of the health service.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. After that very long initial exchange, there will have to be brisk questions and answers.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is it not clear that, when distressing problems arise, they are due not to any fault on the part of clinicians or to lack of resources, but to shortcomings in bed management? May I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and, in particular, his strengthening of the patients charter, which will give an incentive for better and more efficient use of beds?
My right hon. Friend may recall that, when I initiated a debate on intensive care bed provision in London last July, following the incident in which one of my constituents had to be helicoptered to Leeds, I suggested that there should be some form of national computer register of intensive care bed availability. I welcome his statement that that is now being considered, and I hope that it will be brought into effect as soon as possible.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in my statement, exactly that principle is now working in London and has improved intensive care bed management in London and the south-east since it was extended last April. Against the deadline that I announced, we shall review the idea that the computer register should be extended to cover the whole country.
I am grateful that my hon. Friend welcomed the charter proposal. We need to ensure that the charter sets out clear standards for service that are acceptable to patients and are also recognised by those who work in the service as relevant measures of quality.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not deeply shocking and grossly unacceptable that 64 hospital beds are now being closed in south Manchester, including four intensive care beds about which I tabled a parliamentary question to the right hon. Gentleman last Wednesday for priority reply today? While we both know the reasons given for these closures, is there anything he can now do against the background of his statement today

to help, and, more especially, to save the four intensive care beds—because, as he knows, and indeed as we all know, closing intensive care beds costs lives?

Mr. Dorrell: The number of intensive care beds in the north-west, Liverpool and Manchester is being not reduced but increased. Paediatric intensive care provision in the north-west has risen from 20 to 30 available beds since 1993, which reflects the investment in available space. I have already announced to the House the steps that I am taking to ensure sufficient paediatric intensive care beds and that they are effectively used.

Dame Angela Rumbold: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the use of intensive and emergency care beds in the Greater London area. When he writes to chief executives in central and outer London hospitals, perhaps he will address a problem identified by my two local hospitals. A number of elderly people admitted to intensive care beds have been unable to move elsewhere, so continuing to occupy beds that could be used to better purpose. There must be closer co-operation between local care in the community social services and health services. If that were given high priority, it would help enormously.

Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend is precisely right, which is why the relationship between hospitals and social services departments will be specifically addressed by the review.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If some of the improvements that the Secretary of State identified are delivered, that will be welcome. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the test of whether the health service is working is whether it meets the needs that are clearly apparent? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure enough A and E consultants throughout the country?
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the rising demand for intensive and paediatric intensive care beds because of the health service's success in keeping alive people who previously would have died? Some regions have an overall bed shortage. If the review concludes that more money is needed to buy what are expensive NHS resources, will the Secretary of State go into battle in the forthcoming Treasury expenditure round for money to meet the service's basic care needs?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am committed to ensuring sufficient A and E capacity to meet demand. The answer is yes. At consultant, junior doctor and nursing level, we have seen the fastest growth among professional staff in A and E departments in recent years, with a 35 per cent. increase in A and E consultants.
We need to ensure that, if demand continues to increase, as it seems reasonable to expect, we have growing professional resources to meet it. We shall keep a close eye on intensive bed capacity, although the position is more open. One conclusion of the review that I am publishing today is that one in six patients currently occupying an intensive care bed do not need the level of care provided in intensive units. In those circumstances, a substantial increase in capacity is available if we can meet those patients' needs in the kind of high-dependency bed described in my statement.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when a Labour Government were


in charge, hospital admissions were at the whim of the union convener? He said who should go into hospital, and his friends would not bury the dead that resulted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that emergency intensive care and what has become routine intensive care should be used as flexibly as possible—but that such flexibility will lead to even more smears and less help from the Opposition?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is precisely right. The reaction of Labour Members is a reminder of how much they dislike being reminded of their record in government in respect of the national health service. Labour was responsible for the only cut in recent years in funding available to the NHS, and for cutting nurses' pay during its time in office. My hon. Friend reminds the House that Labour was responsible for a state of affairs in which access to hospital was determined not by doctors but by the local NUPE official, as he or she then was.
That is the record of Labour in office. My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House of that, and to draw a sharp contrast between what used to happen and what happens today, when the overwhelming experience of NHS patients, whether they need emergency care or planned care, is that care is delivered to a higher standard than ever before in the history of the NHS.

Ms Ann Coffey: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for offering the sympathy of the whole House to the Geldard family, but that really does not go far enough. The inquiry into Nicholas's death was a damning indictment of the health service on that night. The right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the Geldard family for the failures of that night, because ultimately the responsibility is his, and the situation should have been sorted out a long time ago.

Mr. Dorrell: Hon. Members' sympathy is real and is felt on both sides of the House—I agree with the hon. Lady on that. It is important, following the inquiry, that all necessary steps are taken to ensure that such circumstances do not happen again. The regional health authority has made a series of announcements since the publication of the inquiry, stating that it will take the various measures that the inquiry recommended to improve the quality of care. I have announced what I intend to do about paediatric intensive care units around the country.
A further matter that local interests in Manchester must address is the fact that some of the report's most stinging criticism was aimed at the failure of the health service and local authorities to allow the reorganisation of neurosurgery services and paediatric services in the city. The health service has proposed plans for the consolidation of neurosurgery and of paediatrics. Those plans were opposed by Manchester city council, and that has delayed their implementation.
We need to ensure that all the lessons are learned, not just some of them. The regional health authority is learning them. I have made it clear to the House that I am learning them; I hope that others will do so, too.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I strongly support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) about hospital beds, especially in south-west London.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my local hospitals in Kingston have a logjam of 40 beds—St. Helier hospital has a logjam of 60 beds—caused by elderly patients who are not acute or emergency patients but who are awaiting assessment and placement in nursing home beds by the social services department? Will he do something about those social services departments, particularly in Surrey county council, in Richmond, and in Merton? Or can we introduce some new form of bed—a nursing home bed—to cope with this state of affairs, because it is truly affecting the desperately needed acute services?

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to stress the importance of the relationship between hospitals and social services departments. In both the cases to which he referred, councils that are controlled by Liberal interests were responsible for those social services departments.
My hon. Friend asked what we are doing to ensure the best possible partnership between the NHS and social services departments. Part of the answer is contained in my statement: the need to ensure that accident services are planned in conjunction with social service departments. Another part of the answer is the huge increase in the resources that the Government have voted to social services departments throughout the country.
Social services departments in local authorities are some of the fastest growing programmes in any part of government. In looking for the partnership that my hon. Friend rightly says is necessary, we are entitled to look at the level of resources that have gone to social services departments, and then look for the partnership that is indeed necessary to ensure that we deliver an efficient and effective hospital service.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Why do Ministers never say sorry and never take responsibility? It is always someone else's fault. Nowadays, people have heart attacks, or are knocked down, and no one can find a hospital to take them to. Surely those people do not need a patients charter; they have a patient's right to receive treatment speedily, close to the communities in which they live.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, our experience in Yorkshire shows that people no longer feel that that is a guarantee. When will he accept that, after 17 years, it is his Government's responsibility? Our local managers say that they have been knocked sideways: junior doctors are telephoning around the country in the middle of the night trying to find beds. What a way to run a health service.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I have sought to avoid my responsibility. I have done no such thing. I accept responsibility for ensuring that, within the health service, we have emergency services that continue to provide care of an extremely high quality, and intensive care facilities that meet the need and are properly and efficiently structured.
I was not trying to shuffle off my own responsibility when I reminded the House of the responsibility—mentioned in the report on the Geldard case—that rests with local interests in Manchester which have resisted change that the committee considered necessary. I am concerned to ensure that my responsibility is discharged, while seeking partnership with others to ensure that theirs is also discharged.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend commend Southampton hospital trust on the construction of a new neurological unit, which will be among the finest in the country? After all, time is often the difference between life and death.
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a phenomenon that I observed at first hand at St George's hospital here in London? School child after school child, returning home from school, popped into the accident and emergency unit to ask for aspirins, and to ask whether there would be a dishy doctor to dispense them. On inquiry, I have found that that is not untypical at a number of inner-city hospitals.
Doctors face double jeopardy. If they refuse to treat the children, they may be criticised for doing so; on the other hand, such a "pop-in centre" must constitute a complete misuse of the resources and facilities of the health service.

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health has reminded me, my hon. Friend's local hospital provides a showcase example of the way in which a modern hospital service should work. As for the less desirable service that he has discovered in London, I shall gladly look into it and see whether I agree with his comments.

Ms Jean Corston: Last month, Southmead hospital trust in Bristol announced the closure of eight paediatric intensive care beds. That leaves 25 such beds for children with acute medical conditions, and represents a 25 per cent. cut in the service. The aim is to save £43,000 between now and 1 April.
The trust has acknowledged that children from the city will have to go outside Bristol for treatment. Is it not the case that we now have an 11-month health service? Does the Secretary of State accept that Bristol parents do not want another report or review, or more delay? They want a properly funded health service.

Mr. Dorrell: I remind the House that the Government have voted £500 million of new money to develop the NHS further next year. I am not referring to the huge increases in resources that have been provided in earlier years. I agree with the hon. Lady that we should not have another plan for paediatric intensive care, and I have been working on a very short time scale in order to demonstrate that that aspect is being delivered.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend remind us of the difference in cost between an intensive care bed and a high-dependency bed? Would not an arbitrary moratorium on the closure of hospital beds, as recommended by the Labour party, slow down the creation of high-dependency beds?

Mr. Dorrell: On the second point, my hon. Friend is right. To impose a moratorium on the closure of beds that local health authorities and local trusts believe do not represent the highest priority use of resources must, by definition, mean that fewer resources are available for higher priorities.
In round terms, the figures are that an intensive care bed costs between £250,000 and £300,000 a year, and a high-dependency bed about £100,000 a year. There is therefore a substantial saving. If a patient does not need

intensive care and can be cared for clinically and effectively in a high-dependency bed, there is a significant saving in making that shift. The result will be a better use of health service resources, both financial and human.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that the increase in the intensive care bed occupancy rate may look good on the accountant's balance sheet, but that it is both insufficient and dangerous if, at peak periods, there are not enough beds for patients?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on the Intensive Care Society's recommendation that the maximum occupancy level should, on average, be no more than 70 per cent? Is he committed to that figure? If so, how will he achieve it? Does he agree that, when the NHS fails to provide emergency treatment at a time of need, it means that we no longer have a comprehensive national health service?

Mr. Dorrell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the health service's central functions is to deliver emergency care as and when it is needed—that was where my statement began. I do not accept his proposition that I should accept an essentially arbitrary ceiling for the average intensive care bed occupancy rate, for this reason. Frankly, it is sensible to look for ways of increasing the average occupancy rate of a bed that is costing the health service between £250,000 and £300,000 a year.
Apparently, those on the Labour Front Bench are not interested in the efficient use of that money. I am interested in ensuring that we use the resources as efficiently as we safely, clinically and effectively can. The advice of the work that I am publishing today is that one of the ways of improving the effectiveness with which we use that resource is to ensure that, behind it, there is an intermediate resource—the high-dependency bed, into which the patient who no longer needs intensive care can be moved. Of course I will look for ways of increasing the effectiveness with which NHS resources are used.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not a case simply of resources? If it were, there would be no problem, as there has been a massive increase in NHS funding. If the Opposition believe that extra money should be made available, they have a duty and an obligation to say how much, and where they would obtain that money.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that people in the north-west, and in Ribble Valley in particular, will welcome today's announcement, because it is not a matter simply of Manchester? Blackburn, which covers part of my constituency, does not have sufficient paediatric intensive care facilities. Over Christmas, there was the tragic case of young Lewis Jackson, who had to travel from Clitheroe to Stoke-on-Trent to receive the care that he needed. Unfortunately, he tragically died.
Lewis's parents had to travel back and forth to see him there. They and other parents will therefore welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement today, that the time for talking is over and that action is needed.

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that we now need to demonstrate in a short time scale how a sufficient level of paediatric intensive care beds will be delivered. That is what I have undertaken to do.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does the Minister not realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was worrying? He seemed to imply that high-dependency beds would be in place of other acute beds. If that is the case, it will not solve the problem. In the same way that an intensive care bed can be freed up by moving to high-dependency beds, so a high-dependency bed must be freed up by moving to acute beds. If the number of acute beds has been cut, we are back to the problem we started with.

Mr. Dorrell: Unless, by addressing the relationship between the hospital and the social services department, we could reduce the current inappropriate use of ward space and ward beds. The answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was not intended to suggest a trade-off between high-dependency beds and ward beds. That is not my position.
If, at the level of the individual hospital, managers conclude that there are higher priorities for the use of NHS resources than maintaining the prevailing level of ward bed space, it would be wrong for me to seek to second-guess them. The question that every manager must address all the time is: what is the most effective way of using the money? There is not a direct trade-off—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but nor is there an insistence that the introduction of high-dependency beds must be accompanied by the maintenance of the same number of ward beds. That would be equally absurd.

Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said about accident and emergency departments. In view of the increase in the number of people using such departments, will he agree to reconsider the proposal that the Edgware A and E department be replaced by a mere minor accident unit?

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, that was the subject of a decision announced many months ago. As he also knows, work is currently taking place concerning the range of services to be provided in the new Edgware hospital. I am not in a position to announce a premature conclusion to that process, but I note what my hon. Friend says.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, before his letter to Sheffield children's hospital just before Christmas, there was no national monitoring of the occupancy of intensive care paediatric beds? Does he agree that that absence of monitoring was nothing short of disgraceful? Has his announcement superseded the monitoring work that the children's hospital was asked to do only one month ago?

Mr. Dorrell: No, it has built upon the work that the children's hospital was asked to do at the end of January.

The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that, if I had not believed that there was a need not currently being met, I would not have written to Sheffield hospital.

Mr. David Congdon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the idea that hospital trusts must pay proper attention to how they manage intensive care beds. Does my right hon. Friend agree that health authorities have a responsibility to consider carefully the level of resources that they allocate to trusts in their areas? Although we rightly try to switch resources from secondary to primary care, and succeed in bringing down waiting lists, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that health authorities do not forget the pressing need to ensure that we deliver a first-class emergency and intensive care service?

Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree. An important conclusion that I hope health authorities and others in the health service will draw from the document that we are publishing today, is that health authorities need to address directly, within their local areas, the balance between acute services and primary care services, mental health services and other aspects of the NHS. Within the acute services, they must also address the balance between elective and emergency care.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The Secretary of State's response to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said about the financial crisis that, because of management incompetence, faces south Manchester, was completely inadequate. Will he intervene today to stop the closure of 64 beds in south Manchester, and ensure that the inquiry set up by the regional health authority is made public? Will he belatedly agree to meet me to discuss bed occupancy and health care as a whole in south Manchester, to ensure that my constituents do not suffer because of the incompetence of the management over the past nine months?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman talks about my belatedly agreeing to meet him, but he and I know that we have met once to discuss the position in Manchester. As for the changed structure of service within the city, when the hon. Gentleman reads the Geldard case report, he will clearly see the emphasis that the inquiry team places on the need for a quick resolution of the difficult issues—I do not deny that they are difficult—surrounding neurosurgery and paediatric services in Manchester. I hope that he will agree to support those necessary changes. Of course my office is open to him—as it was last time.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are now going to move on.

BILLS PRESENTED

PREVENTION OF BREAST CANCER

Ms Mildred Gordon, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mrs. Helen Jackson and Mrs. Bridget Prentice, presented a Bill to enable women over the age of 65 years to have routine checks, including mammography, for breast cancer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

ADOPTION LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS

Mrs. Helen Jackson, supported by Ms Tessa Jowell, Ms Ann Coffey, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Janet Anderson, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Joan Walley, presented a Bill to permit the Secretary of State by order to confer rights on adoptive parents in relation to employment similar to those enjoyed by parents whose children are born to them; to make provision for adoptive parents to have the right to return to work during the adoption period laid down; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 26 April and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Stalking

5 pm

Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a new criminal offence of stalking and for a prohibitory order with criminal sanctions against stalking; and for related purposes.
I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an issue of importance to women in the week of International Women's Day. There has been much publicity this week about Tracey Sant, who suffered a three-year hate campaign of a former colleague Anthony Burstow. The details almost defy credibility. Burstow's unpleasant activities included sending Miss Sant a soiled sanitary towel, stealing her underwear from a washing line, pouring solvent over her car and writing her sinister notes—all because when Miss Sant decided to end their friendship, Burstow refused to accept it. He embarked on an excessive campaign that has left an indelible mark on her health and life. Earlier this week, Reading Crown court gaoled him for three years for inflicting psychological grievous bodily harm.
That was the first case of a stalker being convicted of grievous bodily harm, but it took five days of tortuous legal wrangling before the court was able to reach a decision. The reason is simple: the law is inadequate to deal with the problem. That is why the police sergeant involved in the case has called for action to make it easier to prosecute stalkers.
The Police Federation has also come out in favour of a specific crime of stalking. The editorial in Police last month revealed that the police annual conference will call on the Government to introduce laws to combat such criminal harassment. As it pointed out:
it is frightening enough knowing your every move is being watched, that you are being followed. But what if you are being trailed day after day, bombarded with unwanted letters, flowers and gifts, plagued with telephone calls and even go to collect your child from school to find a stranger has beaten you to it. It can ruin your life and that is what is happening now to ordinary people, mainly women.
Vanessa Kennedy, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), was subjected to an eight-year ordeal that she describes as psychological torture. She still lives in fear of the man who has forced her to change her identity, destroyed her family and driven her to move house. She has attempted to commit suicide four times. Vanessa claims that Laurence Hammond threatened to cut her into pieces and make her pay for her rejection of him. He would describe in detail how he would torture her and other women; the images were terrible, and still give her nightmares.
Those who describe stalking as merely a nuisance should try speaking to a victim. They are mistaken if they think that just celebrities and members of the royal family suffer. The stories of ordinary women's lives that are devastated by the actions of obsessive former partners, or sometimes complete strangers, go largely unreported. Only victims who can afford to or who are entitled to legal aid can resort to civil law. Even then, an injunction is often not worth the paper on which it is written.
When ordinary victims turn to the police for help, the police are sympathetic, but tell them that, other than giving them a mobile phone, possibly installing a panic


button in their home and driving past their house every so often, there is very little that they can do. Stalkers know that; when they are convicted of offences such as breach of the peace and making nuisance telephone calls, they learn to restrict their behaviour, keeping just within the law.
The unwanted attention can go on for months, even years. Some victims close to breakdown have felt that the only way in which to escape their stalker is to flee abroad. Others, their lives in tatters, can only pray that their tormentor will tire and move on, or be imprisoned for another offence. While the targets of obsession go on suffering, police officers throughout Britain are frustrated and angry about the absence of a specific offence of stalking.
During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, an amendment that would have introduced a new offence of stalking, which was supported by Labour members of the Committee, was voted down by the Government. At the time, we deplored the Government's failure to take the opportunity to provide protection for women who are subjected to obsessive and frightening harassment.
British women who have been stalked are frustrated by the inadequacy of British law. In the words of one:
You get to the stage where you think the only way the police will take action is if he sticks a knife in you".
It is time that Britain followed the example of Canada, America and Australia, where stalking is a crime.
The National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign recently submitted detailed proposals to the Home Office that would give greater protection to victims of stalking. If stalkers are not stopped, they can go on to assault the object of their obsession; in extreme cases, they may commit rape, and they may even commit murder, with which the family of Catherine Ayling is still struggling to come to terms. We must have new legislation to put an end to such a travesty of justice, which destroys the lives of many women. Stalking must be made a crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Janet Anderson, Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Ann Coffey, Mrs. Margaret Hodge, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Don Touhig, Mrs. Anne Campbell and Mrs. Maria Fyfe.

STALKING

Ms Janet Anderson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for a new criminal offence of stalking and for a prohibitory order with criminal sanctions against stalking; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 March and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Orders of the Day — Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope that the House will allow me first to speak as the hon. Member for Battersea and to pay tribute to my predecessor but one, whose death has been announced today. Douglas Jay, more recently known as Lord Jay, represented my constituency—or most of it—for almost 40 years. Tributes will no doubt be paid for his work in government on other occasions, but today I should like to represent my constituents in saying that I know that he was held in great affection and respect in my constituency, and we shall miss him.
One of the principal aims of community care is to enable people to cope with their problems of disability or frailty so that they can remain in their own homes whenever that is feasible and sensible, and they wish to do so. Making that possible is the challenge to families, informal and formal carers, local, private, voluntary and public organisations and agencies.
Today, we are taking a further significant step down the road of responding to people's wishes and enabling them to lead as normal a life as possible. Direct payments are a natural progression in community care towards that aim, giving users more control and more choice. They put the people who need community care services in the driving seat and allow them to make important decisions about how their needs are met. We are adding dignity, independence and choice to care and support, and I believe that we shall have the support of the whole House in speeding the measure towards the statute book.
In line with our policies, local authorities have increasingly been involving the people who use community care in the planning and development of their services. Experience shows that this approach leads to more flexible and more appropriate services. We have also been listening to people who have been asking us to go further. They want to have more control over the money that is spent meeting their needs. Time and again, I have heard from people who have a disability, but also hold down a job or voluntary work and whose working lives are obstructed by the rigidity of a council service rota; or people who do not like to complain, but would really like a different range of menus from the meal service; or people who have responsible jobs, but are treated by the care workers as if they were rather tiresome and untidy children. They have no real independence, no real choice and no real dignity.
The Bill will change that. Local authorities will be able to give people in defined categories cash instead of services. Those people will be able to choose within the available resources how and when the services that they need will be provided. They will be able to decide from whom to buy services, or whom to employ to assist them in leading more independent lives, and they will manage directly the services that they receive.
Members of both Houses do not need me to extol the virtues of direct payments. I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Lord McColl, who introduced a Bill on this matter in another place, and of course to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), whose Disabled Persons (Service) Bill sought to take us down this road. He and our then hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) have continued to press hard for such a measure, and I am sure that they will both be pleased that we have been able to stride forward for the benefit of disabled people.

Mr. William O'Brien: What guidance will the Minister offer to local authorities regarding people who are receiving social benefits to ensure that those benefits are not impinged upon by the provision of direct payments? Does he intend to introduce regulations that will offer guidance on what local authorities can offer with regard to the needs of those requesting community care? Will he offer assistance on the schemes that may be adopted by local authorities?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to refer to a number of matters that I shall mention later. We will produce guidance for local authorities introducing the schemes and for the people who will be seeking to manage their own affairs through direct payments. He also mentioned the benefits system, and any necessary clarification on that will be forthcoming. Our intention is that direct payments should in no way change the situation of someone receiving direct services.

Sir Andrew Bowden: The House will welcome what my hon. Friend said about the right of independent living, dignity and choice. Can he assure the House that that will apply also to people aged over 65?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend may know that our consultation on the precise eligibility criteria has just finished. One of the matters that we looked at was whether the eligibility should, in the first instance, be limited to particular categories of people. In so doing, we shall certainly consider whether passing a particular age should exclude a person from the schemes—again, I must say, in the first instance. I shall return to that point, and my hon. Friend may get a clear response later.
I was referring to the twins of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, who were pressing similar measures upon us. They will understand if I add that, even more importantly, the introduction of direct payments has been warmly welcomed by the people who will be most directly affected—particularly by disabled people who may receive payments, and by local authorities that may make payments.
Representatives of both groups were involved in a technical advisory group that helped us think through the issues as we worked out the details of the Bill. We are very grateful for their contribution, and look forward to drawing on their expertise again as we work on the guidance that we intend to produce. I should also like to thank all those who have responded to the consultation

exercise on the matters to be covered in both regulations and guidance. It is very important that we get the framework for direct payments right, and we are now carefully considering the responses.
Clauses 1 to 3 apply to England and Wales, while clauses 4 and 5 make corresponding provision for Scotland by adding new sections to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Clause 6 allows for this legislation to be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council using the negative resolution procedure. When the Bill comes into force, its power will be available to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
The Bill starts from the local authority's assessment of someone's needs under the existing law on community care. If it appears to the authority that someone may need community care services—whether that is a person to provide care, an adaptation, special equipment or any other service that the authority might provide—it has a duty to assess that person's needs. If it concludes that services are needed, at present it can generally either provide those services itself or purchase them from another agency. Under the provisions of the Bill, the local authority will in certain circumstances also have the option to make a direct payment to enable the individual to buy his own services.
The Bill does not impose on local authorities a duty to offer anyone direct payments instead of services. Local authorities will still have to decide the most appropriate way of meeting an individual's needs, but they will now have a new alternative to offer. Equally, no one will be forced to accept direct payments. People will be free to choose to continue to receive services instead. They could also receive a mixture of both cash and services.
Clause 1 and the Scottish equivalent in clause 4 enable the Secretary of State to specify in regulations which groups of people may receive direct payments. It makes sense to restrict the initial size of the client group for this new and largely untested development. That will enable local authorities to identify and address any initial problems while making direct payments on a limited scale, and the Government will be able to see clearly any adjustments that may be needed to the national framework. The Government think that this approach will give direct payments the greatest chance of being implemented successfully.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Minister will be aware of the different circumstances that apply north of the border, which is why clauses 4 and 5 are needed. He will also be aware that there are circumstances where, under the 1968 Act, Scottish local authorities can already apply some of the provisions in the Bill. Will he assure us that nothing in the Bill will further restrict the provisions that already apply north of the border?

Mr. Bowis: I shall return to the Scottish measures in a moment.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I understand that physical disability will be the initial criterion used for eligibility. Bearing it in mind that disability does not come in neat packages, can the Minister tell us whether a person who may have learning difficulties in addition to a physical disability will qualify? Clearly, a number of people will not fit neatly into the definition that the Government appear to be offering.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to prejudge the results of the consultation, and I will not do so. He is right, however, to suggest that a proposal was set out on which people could put their views, so that we could find out whether it was right or should be extended. It is fair to say that, if the younger physically disabled were to be the first category to benefit from the measure, people in that category with other disabilities or needs would still be eligible because they are eligible under that category. I hope that that is helpful.

Mr. Roger Berry: Does the Minister acknowledge that it would be discriminatory to exclude large groups of disabled people from the provision? What conceivable reason can there be for denying local authorities the discretion to make direct payments to people over 65, or those with learning disabilities? The Minister is introducing another example of discrimination.

Mr. Bowis: Far from discriminating, we are trying to provide opportunities. It is a question of the pace at which the measure comes in. We must consider the results of the consultation, which has only just been completed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be considering the results and, in due course, the proposals linked to the regulations will come back to the House, when we will have an opportunity to study all those matters.
Our consultation paper set out a number of alternatives for specifying the eligible group and asked for views. It explained that the Government are inclined to the view that, in the first instance, eligibility should be limited to adults aged under 65 years, who are physically disabled and able and willing to manage direct payments, with help if necessary. We made it clear that that group would include people with physical disabilities who also had some other form of impairment, which answers the question of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). It would also allow people who have been receiving direct payments before the age of 65 to continue to receive them when they reach that age, and I hope that that answers my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden). There would not be a cut-off once people reached that age.
No final decision has yet been taken on the eligible group. In particular—this has been raised on a number of occasions, not least in another place—we are committed to considering carefully whether all adults under the age of 65 with learning disabilities who are able and willing to manage direct payments, with help if necessary, should be eligible. I hope that that also answers the hon. Member for Wakefield. We have received more than 300 responses to the consultation from throughout the United Kingdom and we are considering what has been said on the question. I look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members, not least in this debate, before reaching a final decision.
Whatever we decide, the reason for selecting an eligible group is to keep direct payments on a manageable scale in the first instance. We are making no assumptions about who might or might not be able to manage. We shall keep the eligible group under review once direct payments are available. Specifying eligibility in regulations will, of course, allow us to adjust it in the light of experience without the need to amend primary legislation.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: How many people are included in the group of those who are

immediately to be considered eligible and how many will be left out on grounds of either mental handicap or being over the age of 65?

Mr. Bowis: It is difficult to answer that question, but if one based the calculation on the number of households in which some form of home help is provided for people in the under-65 category who have a physical disability, one would be talking about something like 30,000 households. I think that the figures for learning disability would be around the 4,000 mark. I hope that my hon. Friend will not hold me precisely to those figures. I am giving round figures to give him some idea of the numbers. He will know the overall figures for people with disabilities. One then has to assess the number who would want, and feel able to have, a direct payment, which is more difficult to do. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.
I shall briefly explain how direct payments will work. Following assessment of need and the person's decision to ask for a direct payment, the local authority will decide how much the direct payment should be. It will not be able to set direct payments at a level that is insufficient to meet a person's assessed needs. Nor should it set direct payments at a level that it knows is less cost-effective than the services that it would otherwise arrange. Equally, it still has a responsibility to ensure value for taxpayers' money. If it costs someone £200 to buy the service that he needs, the local authority cannot arbitrarily decide to give him only £100. If the person could get a perfectly satisfactory service for £200 but prefers a service that costs £300, there is no reason why the local authority should be required to provide the extra £100.
In setting the level of payments, the local authority can also take into account people's financial circumstances. Just as the authority has discretion to charge for its non-residential services, it has discretion to consider whether someone can afford to make a financial contribution to the cost of his care. The authority is not required to do that; it is given the discretion to decide whether, and if so how, to ask someone to make a financial contribution to the cost of his care. The Government intend that people who receive direct payments should be treated no more or less favourably than people who receive services.
The aim of direct payments is to give people more choice and control over services that they would otherwise receive from local authorities, not to replace existing support given by families and communities. We propose to make regulations specifying certain categories of people who may not be paid to provide care using direct payments. That is the purpose of clause 1(4).
The consultation paper proposed that that category should include a spouse, partner or close relative living in the same household. In addition, it proposed that statutory guidance should say that local authorities should not make direct payments where the recipient intends to contract with close relatives who live elsewhere, or other people living in the same household. There would, however, be discretion to make exceptions to the rules set out in that guidance in exceptional circumstances, where there was no suitable alternative.
Clause 1 also contains a power to make regulations to limit the length of time for which direct payments may be used to pay for residential accommodation. That will allow local authorities to make direct payments for respite


care, but not for permanent residential care. We suggested the maximum period should be four weeks in any 12-month period and here, too, we are considering the responses.
The final provision under clause 1 enables the local authority to require direct payments to be repaid where it is not satisfied that they have been spent properly.
Clause 2 and its Scottish equivalent in clause 4 remove the possibility that a local authority that makes direct payments might also have to arrange the services unnecessarily, but the local authority will remain the carer of last resort.
Clause 3 is a consequential amendment to include direct payments in the list of social services functions. Importantly, that means that people receiving direct payments will have the same access to the complaints procedures as service users and that the Secretary of State will have the same powers to intervene should a local authority fail to carry out that function properly as he does in other cases. An equivalent clause is not needed for Scotland as the Scottish provisions will form part of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which already provides for a complaints procedure and other functions—that answers the question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
I am confident that many disabled people who have been asking us to allow them to manage their own care will cope well with the responsibilities of doing so. Some people, however, may benefit from help and support to enable them to do so. The Government intend to issue practice guidance—that is the guidance about which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked—to encourage local authorities to provide support to people who receive direct payments. We are also considering the possibility of producing a guide to managing direct payments for the people who receive them.
The Bill is an imaginative and innovative measure, which has the potential to make a major difference to many people's lives. It will enable people who are on the receiving end of services to take charge and manage their own care. They will be able to decide for themselves, when, how and by whom services should be provided. It has been welcomed by people with disabilities and by local authorities, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank the Under-Secretary for his most gracious tribute to the late Douglas Jay. We share the hon. Gentleman's sadness. As a former young socialist, I remember Douglas Jay. At one point I actually disagreed with him. He suggested in the Labour journal "Forward" that we should change the name of our party. However, I forgave him later when he joined the Harold Wilson Government and was responsible for an excellent regional policy, from which Scotland as a nation, and many other regions of Great Britain, benefited and which we shall always remember.
I thank the Under-Secretary, too, for the outline that he gave us—not that I necessarily aim to praise him or his policies. However, there is no difference between us over whether there ought to be legislation.
I must suggest to the Under-Secretary that he keep an eye on Ministers in other Departments. Before we begin to consider the issues in this debate, he should watch his

back. Just half an hour ago, we found in the Press Gallery a press release issued by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People explaining that there would be much consultation on the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He seems to be concerned that the Under-Secretary, for whom we have enormous regard, will make real strides on disability. In the interests of the hon. Gentleman's reputation, I am worried about that, but I am even more worried about his colleague, who ended his press release, which I have read in the past 25 minutes, by saying:
The document is also available in braille, on audio tape and in Welsh.
I am delighted to hear that. There are other parts of the United Kingdom that might welcome other versions of what the Government have to say.
The Bill offers the possibility, but thus far only the possibility, of a significant step forward for thousands of disabled people. There are signs that Parliament has come to recognise the importance of the 6.5 million disabled people and 7 million carers. On average, each hon. Member represents about 10,000 constituents in each of those categories. More than one in five of the British population have a direct, personal interest in how we legislate on this subject.
In welcoming the broad principle behind the Bill and laying out the Opposition's criticisms and concerns about some of its aspects, I should recognise the extent of cross-party agreement on disability that we have enjoyed in the House and also its limitations. The Minister was right to pay tribute to those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and hon. Members from other parties who made contributions in the fight for direct payments. They, too, would welcome the behind-the-scenes contribution of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). This must be a happy day for him.
It is worth noting that the Labour party has enjoyed broad and effective support from other parties in Great Britain for progressive legislation on disability. It is true that there remain on the Government Benches a number of hon. Members who have supported Labour initiatives on the matter in the past, although the number has diminished with every passing defection from their ranks. That, too, we welcome. That does not mean that the Government and the Opposition are entirely at one on the Bill.
The Government have a record of coming late and reluctantly to recognise the strength of the case that disabled people make for legislative change. We welcome the introduction of this measure unreservedly, but its shortcomings offer further evidence of the Government's less than whole-hearted commitment and explain the frustrations of many disabled people, organisations of and for disabled people, and Jane Campbell, who may be listening to our deliberations and who has made such a wonderful contribution to our achievements on disability.
We and the Government start from opposite principles. We start from the position that it is right to use legislation to end social discrimination against those with mental or physical impairments. They start from the position that legislation should be introduced only when there is no alternative and that it should go no further than the minimum required. That is why the Government have chosen to introduce a good Bill but intend to hamper its


fulfilment by tying it down with bad regulations. To prevent that, we will lay down today the matters in respect of which we believe the Bill can and should be changed.
Disabled people have long campaigned for greater control over the design and delivery of their care. They have argued that they are better placed than anyone else to understand what they need and to choose the levels and nature of personal assistance that will free them from the constraints of disability. They are right. That is why the campaign for direct payments has been supported by Labour, as was demonstrated by our colleagues in another place. We recognise that for direct payments to work, they must have the support and commitment of local authorities. Disabled people's organisations have generally recognised that, too.
The Under-Secretary said something about the historical context in which the Bill has been introduced. It is more than 20 years since the first group of disabled people persuaded their local authority of the merits of giving them direct control over their care by making cash payments. That initiative was followed by the first establishment of a centre for independent living through which disabled people in receipt of cash payments were enabled to provide advice to others who were considering going down the same route. It is eight years since the setting up of the original independent living fund, under which social security resources have been used to assist the growth of disabled people's autonomy and control.
The Government have recognised that the demand for cash payments has outstripped existing legal provision. That is why we have the Bill. Several hundred disabled people benefit from the initiative shown by up to 60 local authorities that have found indirect ways of supporting independent living through third-party agencies. The Minister's colleagues in the House of Lords said that it was not the Government's purpose to make legal such schemes where their legality was in doubt. I regret that Ministers take that approach. I do not know whether the Minister will confirm that approach when he replies.
It is the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that their actions are within the law, but it would be a great pity if the opportunity provided by the Bill to assist them in so doing were not taken. I know from the experience of the social work authority that covers my constituency—which, until the end of the month is Strathclyde region's social work department—that much can be done within the limits of existing law to provide cash payment to disabled people able and willing to take responsibility for management of their care. What is true of several social work departments in Scotland is also true of many social service authorities in England and Wales. However, it is not always clear beyond peradventure that such schemes are on a sound legal footing. I hope that that will be clear by the time the House has concluded its consideration of the Bill.
It is six years since the idea of direct payments was first mooted in this place and we welcome the fact that it is now possible to move forward and make that a reality. It is not a heavy parliamentary Session in terms of legislation brought forward by Ministers—we all know the reason for that—but it will not be long before we see the kind of busy parliamentary schedule that follows the election of a new Government. Along with millions of others, I look forward to that day with great anticipation.
In light of that prospect, it is even more important to get the Bill right. It is difficult to envisage another comparable opportunity to address the matter through primary legislation in the immediate future. That is the first requirement that the Bill fails to meet. By saying that they will impose restrictions on the operation of direct payments which will leave the legal status of some existing third-party schemes in doubt—the Minister did not assist us in responding to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—Ministers are neglecting their best opportunity to clarify, and thereby strengthen and improve, the law.

Mr. Bowis: It might assist the hon. Gentleman if I confirm at this point that nothing in the Bill will make illegal any scheme that local authorities and their legal advisers have deemed to be sufficiently legal to put into practice. Schemes that are in place now should not be affected. We are not seeking to undermine such schemes; they may continue. Local authorities must always check the legality of schemes with their legal advisers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that illegal schemes are operating at present.

Mr. Clarke: I am extremely interested in the Minister's comments; we shall study his words very carefully. However, his remarks seem to be somewhat inconsistent with the response that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, who raised the specific issue of people with learning difficulties and those aged over 65.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) asked me whether someone who was young and physically disabled—such a person would qualify under the eligibility criteria on that basis—and who also had a mental illness or some other type of disability or need would be eligible. I said that that person would. It has nothing to do with any current schemes.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but he has not addressed the issue of people with learning difficulties and those aged over 65 who benefit at the moment from indirect payments that are paid to them by a third party but whose future is now in doubt because, thus far, the legislation does not spell it out.
That brings us to the central problem with the Government's approach. In the consultation paper that they produced in January, Ministers made clear their preference for limiting eligibility—I shall quote carefully from that paper, as I wish to be fair to the Minister and to the Government—to
Adults who are physically disabled (including people with sensory impairments), who are under the age of 65 and are able and willing to manage direct payments (with help if necessary). This does not exclude people with both a physical disability and another condition (such as learning disability). Those aged 65 or over who began to receive direct payments before age 65 could continue to do so after that age".
I shall cease quoting at that point because it is very important to register what the Government have said. The consultation document justifies that preference on the basis that
Restricting the size of the eligible group will allow local authorities to test out direct payments on a limited scale, identifying and addressing any problems before the Government considers whether eligibility should be extended to others who are able and willing to manage direct payments".


A case can certainly be made for testing direct payments: we recognise the value of a flexible approach there. However, the Government have gone about it in the wrong way. Ministers clearly accept the view that some local authorities are better placed than others to run direct payment schemes as they are already providing cash payments to disabled people through third parties, as I mentioned earlier. That is the basis of the Government's argument for making direct payments discretionary. Under the Bill, local authorities are not obliged to provide direct payments if they do not believe that they are ready and able to do so.
Some disability groups believe that access to direct payments should apply throughout the country and that councils should be under an obligation to make such payments available. We have a good deal of sympathy with that point of view. We believe that the services and the opportunities available to disabled people should not depend on where they happen to live. At the same time, we have listened to local authorities.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the question whether local authorities should have the discretion to fulfil the wishes of local people. I think that organisations and individuals will bring such strong pressure to bear on local authorities that they will have no choice other than to operate the scheme. There are very influential disabled groups in Brighton in my constituency, and woe betide Brighton council—or any other local authority in the area—if it does not implement the full provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. As I proceed with my speech, he will find that we agree absolutely on that point.
We have listened to local authorities that have said that they want direct payments to be payable at the discretion of the council in question. We have also considered the evidence of a recent national survey—which I believe the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) will welcome—which was conducted for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People by the Policy Studies Institute. It found that more than 90 per cent. of responding authorities would make direct payments if they were confident that legislation permitted them to do so.
Direct payments are likely to be so successful and efficient that we believe that all local authorities will want to join the system within a very short period. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) will explore, in winding up today for the Opposition and in Committee, what can be done to avoid a patchwork of provision in different parts of the country.
If Ministers are to sustain the case for a discretionary scheme, they must follow the logic of that case to its proper conclusions. They propose to exempt those authorities that are least able to undertake direct payments from any immediate obligation to do so. However, at the same time they are preventing those authorities that are best placed to undertake direct payments from providing them to all those who are able and willing to take them up.
I have already mentioned the Opposition's concern about Ministers' reluctance to take the opportunity to clarify the position of existing third-party schemes—some

of whose recipients include people aged over 65 and those with learning disabilities but no physical disability. Associated with that is our concern that the freedom of all local authorities to provide new cash payments will be inhibited by unnecessary exclusions of those aged over 65 and those who are not physically disabled. If it is right that local authorities should have the discretion to decide whether to have schemes and if the professional judgment of local authority social work and social services staff is the right basis for making decisions about individual cases, local authorities should have the discretion to decide whether disabled persons are willing and able to manage their own care and should meet with a positive response.
That view has overwhelming support, which will be borne out by the consultation process when Ministers are ready to publish the findings. For example, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People said:
Restricting eligibility is unnecessary and would be contrary to all principles of equality.
The council pointed out the difficulty created for local authorities in making judgments in relation to different kinds of disabilities. It also drew attention to the problem of being obliged to turn down people who are otherwise qualified and capable of receiving direct payments because of an exclusion imposed on the council by central Government regulation.
Equally, local authorities have not welcomed the Government's chosen method of limiting demand on the new schemes. The Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, representing councils responsible for the implementation of this measure, have pressed for the removal of what they regard as tight national constraints. The Disablement Income Group has outstanding experience in this field and has pointed out that one third of its clients of the original independent living fund were over 65. It points out that there is no logic or common sense in using retirement age as a boundary in limiting the right or assessing the ability of someone to make choices and to take control over his or her personal care.
I could go on, but I would have great difficulty in finding anyone—those representing disabled people, local authorities, social service professionals or care providers—who agreed with the Government's approach of blanket exclusions of whole categories of disabled people. This is a serious issue because, in principle, such blanket exclusions amount to discrimination. In practice, they prevent the further development of best practice, place artificial limits on the growth of direct payment schemes and run the risk of creating ludicrous anomalies. I have quoted the Government's preferred option from their consultation paper—which I shall repeat, for the sake of hon. Members who may have doubted that they heard me correctly:
This does not exclude people with both a physical disability and another condition (such as learning disability).
I refer to the hypothetical case of three disabled people who are seeking to take advantage of the opportunity to receive direct payments: one meets the medical definition of physical disability; another has learning disabilities; and the third has both physical disabilities and learning disabilities. Under Labour's approach, each person would be assessed on an individual basis and would be eligible to receive direct payments if he or she were found to be able to and willing to manage his or her care.
Under the Government's approach, the individual with a learning disability but with no physical disability would be automatically disqualified from consideration as the Bill now stands. The individual with both physical impairment and learning disability would qualify to be considered. That is surely an anomaly, and one that was never satisfactorily explained in another place or in the Minister's speech today.

Mr. Bowis: There is nothing in the Bill that restricts anything. Regulations will outline how the system should be put in practice to begin with; once the initial implementation has been made effectively, the House will, with the minimum of inconvenience, bring forward regulations to extend it further.

Mr. Clarke: The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Government's consultation document makes it perfectly clear that the Government intend to exclude people with learning difficulties. We have had consultation and we have a Bill, but we have been told absolutely nothing about the Government's views on or responses to the consultation document. I listened to most of the debate in another place and the Government would not give one inch on that issue—the Minister ought to worry that that may be the instruction to him as we proceed with the other stages of the Bill.

Mr. Berry: What would have happened if the Minister had suggested that these provisions should apply to people who have learning disabilities but not to those who have physical disabilities? Is not the obvious answer to that question a reflection of the fact that the Bill, in the light of the proposal that will come forward in regulations, is systematically discriminating against people with learning disabilities—they are being treated like second-class citizens?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has enormous experience in these matters, and he has got it absolutely right. Until the Government offer us a different explanation of their approach to each individual who is assessed, the Minister will have a great deal to do in the House and in Committee to clarify the issue.
The situation is further complicated by the intention to exclude those who are over 65. However, more anomalies will arise along these lines when the issue of what kind of disability a person has is crossed with the issue of whether the person is over 65 when first seeking a direct payment. No doubt, the Government's proposals will create anomalies and fly in the face of the Government's support for local authority discretion. They have missed the opportunity to have a genuine piloting of the new scheme.
If Ministers are really concerned to limit provision to the capacities of local authorities to meet demand, they should give more, not less, discretion to local authorities. That is precisely what Labour Members argued in the House of Lords. My colleagues in another place made the case against blanket exclusion on principle, and went so far as to offer the Government a compromise position, whereby Ministers could ensure that only those councils most experienced in cash payments could offer them to those with learning disabilities or to those over 65. In that way, the majority of councils would have to live with the Government's blanket exclusions for only a year or two, but those that were already geared up for making direct

payments could do so right away if they could satisfy Ministers that they knew what they were doing. That compromise was offered to Ministers in another place, but they were not prepared to take it. I hope the Minister says why his colleagues in another place rejected that compromise and whether he is prepared to accept it or why he is not prepared to do so.
Today, the Minister has been unable to say what conclusions he has reached as a result of the consultation exercise. It is a great pity that this legislation has been rushed and that it began in the wrong place at the wrong time. Members of the House of Lords found themselves considering a Bill without having had sight or knowledge of the results of the consultation with the interested parties—that is totally unacceptable. In spite of the protests of noble Lords, the Government insisted on completing the House of Lords stages of the Bill before the consultation was completed—never mind the findings being published.
Proper parliamentary scrutiny of the measure would have been assisted had the Bill been introduced in the House a week or two from now. That would have allowed the Government to publish their conclusions after consulting interested parties. The House would then have been able to consider the Bill with full knowledge of the relevant facts and the House of Lords could have played its proper role of reviewing the legislation after it had been considered by hon. Members.
Instead, the Bill has completed half its parliamentary consideration and all we know of Ministers' intentions is what their preferred options would be. We do not have firm commitments on the contents of regulations and guidance on which the Bill is heavily based. It appears that their preferred options remain the wrong ones. They are too cautious, too conservative and too unwilling to learn the logic of local authority discretion and to permit different authorities to progress at different speeds, yet they continually talk about choice.
I focused on the blanket exclusions that Ministers intend to put in regulations, but that is not our only problem with the Government's intentions. Ministers want to maintain the distinction between formal and informal care, and we agree. We accept that direct payments must not result in making informal care and support structures provided by family and friends into formal paid employment; few disabled people would want it to work that way. So we recognise that it is important to avoid the danger of disabled people or their carers being locked into such a relationship against their will.
Again, the Government's intentions, as outlined in the consultation paper, go beyond what is necessary to achieve those ends. They propose to place a general prohibition on the employment not just of members of the immediate family within the same household but of all members of the recipient's extended family wherever they live. It makes no sense to treat in-laws or the partners of nieces and nephews in the same way as a husband or wife living in the same house.
The Government's approach to the measure is clear. They have at long last conceded that direct payments work and that the individual life styles of disabled persons and elderly disabled persons can be met by the services that local authorities provide. However, the Bill, which we all welcome, diminishes the impact of direct payments by its approach. It represents a dilution of the measures that the Government promised and excludes people with learning difficulties and those over 65.
Happily, the Bill, which I hope will receive a Second Reading tonight, will be considered in Committee where there will be a thorough examination of its contents. In due course, it will return to the House for consideration and, one would assume, Third Reading.
Opposition Members regard as most important the views of disabled people in a pluralist society. In that spirit, I welcome the Bill, but I give the Minister notice that we shall examine everything that is proposed so that we have a true, progressive and forward-looking development of care in the community.

Sir Nicholas Scott: I thank the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for his gracious remarks earlier. We understand that it is the duty of the Opposition carefully to examine legislation and other Government proposals, but the hon. Gentleman made quite a meal of his objections today. The vast majority of hon. Members will welcome the Bill, introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who deserves congratulations. Having been through part of the process some years ago, I suspect that some of the constraints that may be apparent in the present proposals may have come not from his Department, but from another Department on the other side of Whitehall—an experience that I frequently had during my time in office.
I certainly welcome the Bill, and I shall briefly explain to the House why. We may have some reservations about the way in which regulations may put constraints on the operation of the Bill. It will be up to those of us who take a close interest in these matters to keep a careful eye on them. I hope and trust that the scheme proposed in the Bill will expand and develop in future years, as did the independent living fund, which was launched in a modest way and then grew at a tremendous rate over the years of its existence. That may have been a cause for concern in the hearts and minds of those who keep the books, which may have had an impact on the plans of my hon. Friend and his colleagues.
I cannot claim direct responsibility for the ideas contained in the measure, but perhaps I can claim some grandparental responsibility, because the independent living fund was the precursor and the proof that such an approach to cash payments was a feasible way of meeting the needs of disabled people.
It is worth recalling that when we proposed the independent living fund, virtually all the organisations of and for disabled people were hostile to it. The Disablement Income Group was almost alone in supporting it. Pauline Thompson, its director, showed great courage in responding to and rejecting the opposition and complaints of many other organisations. It enabled us to launch the independent living fund and make it a growing success over the years. Other organisations tended to stand aside.
The Disablement Income Group has done a great deal to encourage the spread of third-party schemes, which play an important role. I doubt whether there are any legal problems, because I cannot think that any local authority would have launched such a scheme without taking careful legal advice from its own legal advisers, the town clerk and others. The schemes have not been challenged, so my

suspicion is that they will all turn out to be soundly legally based and could provide a pattern for provision under the Bill.
The success of the independent living fund has undoubtedly shown that disabled people can be trusted to use the power given to them by such an approach to control their own lives. Before the independent living fund—and the practice continues in many parts of the country—disabled people had the choice between institutional care and services provided by some local authorities that said, "We shall get you out of bed at 10.30 in the morning and you have to go to bed at 4.30 in the afternoon, as that is the only way we can fit you into our pattern of provision." Disabled people do not want that. They want to be empowered to control their own lives and to make their own choices about their life style and the pattern of their activities. Cash payments have made that possible for thousands of disabled people over the years. I am delighted that the Bill will extend and develop that concept.
By 1993, when the original scheme was replaced, some 23,000 disabled people had benefited from the work of the independent living fund. That in itself is a tribute to its success.
In summary, inadequate statutory provision by local authorities for all those people was replaced, enabling them to make their own choices about their lives. The other important aspect of cash payments and the way in which the independent living fund, third-party schemes and the new schemes will operate is that they are between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. cheaper than the provision of sometimes inadequate services by local social services departments.
Of course, some disabled people require not only cash to buy services for themselves, but support and guidance on how to deploy the resources with which they have been provided. I was particularly grateful to the Minister for making it clear that the Government will play a part in the provision of that guidance and support. I hope that they will stay in close touch with the Disablement Income Group, which has already produced two excellent documents on how people can purchase packages for personal care. If the Government stay in close touch with that organisation, they will not go far wrong.
The Government produced some advice under the old scheme, and they are prepared to play their part in the new arrangements. Of course, books and pamphlets can help, but I hope that the Government, in addition to such advice and support, will be able to encourage, through local authorities, the development of local support groups of disabled people and their carers. Those groups could develop plans locally, to enable disabled people to make the best possible use of the cash help that they receive through this system, by sharing their experiences and providing advice and help to those who are contemplating accepting cash-based services rather than opting for the pattern of social services provision. They will require help in developing ideas on how to recruit care assistants, how to cope with payroll problems and on the other little detailed matters in relation to employing care assistants, which will enable them to live a full life.
Direct payments have substantial advantages over present provision. As I said, they are cheaper to administer and cheaper for the local authority to provide. I very much hope that schemes that will be supportive of disabled people will develop throughout the voluntary sector.
I rejoice that the Bill has come before the House. I do not mind if I have to limit my rejoicing slightly because of some of the scheme's constraints, as I believe that, as it is developed, it will increasingly become a common pattern across the country.
I should like to put three points to my hon. Friend the Minister. The first is that, where there is real local demand for the service, there ought at least to be a presumption, if not an obligation, that local authorities should have to provide schemes that are cash-based—in addition to or in replacement for the social services schemes that are currently the common pattern.
The second point is that the payments of cash should normally be made directly to disabled people. I accept that that may not always be possible or appropriate, but I believe that the normal pattern should be that payments are made to them. I was slightly worried by the provision in clause 1(4), which

allows the Secretary of State to specify in regulations categories of people who may not be paid to provide a service using direct payments.
I hope that that was not meant to prohibit a disabled person's relative from receiving cash in order to provide support to him or her. I do not know what categories the Secretary of State or the Minister has in mind, but I should be very disappointed if that prohibition were to include relatives.

Mr. Bowis: The purpose of that provision is to preclude payment for services along the lines mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), not to preclude people receiving payments on behalf of the individual, if that is what the individual wishes.

Sir Nicholas Scott: We shall need to look carefully at the regulations when they come out, to ensure that they cover that point.
The last point that I should like to make is that the payments of cash to disabled people should, when calculated, provide not only for the actual cost of the provision of care, but for matters such as national insurance, statutory sick pay and insurance, which are necessary for a comprehensive and effective package.
I wish the Bill well and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I hope that, as matters progress, the concerns that I and other hon. Members have expressed about the scheme's future can be answered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I want, first, to thank the Minister for his clearly heartfelt words, which could not have been more felicitously chosen, about the life and passing today of Douglas Jay. For many years, Douglas was my close colleague in this House, and I kept in touch with him after he departed for another place. There are still some right hon. and hon. Members who will remember just how closely at times I worked with him. They will know how very moved I am by his death. I loved his humour and benefited much both from his learning and parliamentary skills. I mourn his passing and will ever cherish his memory.
It is, of course, a pleasure for me to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in this debate, and I pay warm tribute to the depth of his concern to improve the Bill in ways that disability

organisations want to achieve. At the same time, I am delighted to see by his side on the Front Bench our good and hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), in pursuance of his abiding commitment to the cause of extending choice and enhancing the freedom and independence of disabled people.
The intensity and extent of interest in the Bill among disability organisations is demonstrated in all the helpful briefing we have had from them. There should be a word of gratitude also today for organisations which, while they may not have lobbied the House in recent days, were very much involved in the earliest campaigning for direct payments like, for example, the Association of Disabled Professionals, who, five years ago, on 21 March 1991, met the then Secretary of State for Health to press for a nationwide scheme of direct payments. Their concern then, like mine in this debate, was to quicken the pace of progress from paternalism to partnership in addressing the problems and needs of disabled people.
Five years ago, direct payments were being made to disabled people only by a few pioneering local authorities. The fear that they were acting illegally prevented other councils from following suit: in their areas disabled people had to rely for help with personal and domestic tasks on whoever the local authority sent and, as the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) said, at times that best suited the council. The people sent to help would only do what they had been trained to do in the way that they had been trained. Often this did not meet the real needs of the disabled person and was not, therefore, to her or his liking. But it was Hobson's choice. Either they docilely accepted what was organised for them or they were shunted into residential care.
With direct payments the few disabled people who received them were able to employ helpers of their choice at times that suited them and in a way that they wanted. In short, direct payments helped disabled people to regain some control over their own lives. That is why the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill, which has its origins in that meeting five years ago, has been so widely welcomed by disabled people. Welcome though it is, however, there are three areas in which I hope it will be improved.
First, there is the Government's proposal initially to allow only physically disabled people below the age of 65, including those with sensory impairments, to receive direct payments. That is wrong and I hope the House will insist that people with learning difficulties should be included from the outset. Only to include people with learning difficulties if they also have a physical or sensory impairment, as the Government propose, is hardly logical and will be difficult to justify in practice when dealing with real people in their homes. To distinguish between physically and sensorily disabled people on the one hand and people with learning difficulties on the other means singling out one group for special treatment thus creating a class of favoured disabilities, which is as distasteful to most disabled people as I am sure it will prove unacceptable to this House.
I turn now briefly to the proposed age bar. To exclude people from direct payments if they are over retirement age smacks, some might say reeks, of unfair discrimination. It presumes that chronological age is the main determinant in measuring need; but that is demonstrably untrue. Of course, the truth is that discriminating against elderly disabled


people by excluding them from direct payments is about keeping costs down. It has nothing whatever to do with logic or fairness.
Ideally direct payments should be payable to all adults who are able and willing to manage them, with some help if necessary and without age limit. I believe that local authority staff with direct contact with individual disabled people are in the best position to decide who to include in the scheme. Under the terms of the Bill, local authorities are to be allowed to refuse direct payments to any individual providing they act responsibly and reasonably in doing so. But why not let them act responsibly and reasonably in deciding who to include?
The second area for improvement to the Bill relates to the direct payment itself. Two issues arise here. One is that of ensuring that direct payments will in fact buy what the disabled person has been assessed as needing. Leaving aside the question of a contribution from the recipient, the direct payment should cover in full the real cost of securing the agreed service. In the case of an agency providing the service, the payment should allow the agency's staff terms of employment similar to those available to local authority staff. If the payment is used directly to employ a helper, the payment should allow the recipient to fulfil all her or his duties as a good employer.
In assessing how much a service provided by a local authority costs, the authority should ensure that its total cost is calculated. This should include all overheads and supervisory and administrative staff costs. Otherwise the comparison between direct payments and in-house costs relating to individual clients could result in direct payments becoming a means of cheapening the cost and reducing the quality of providing essential services. It is extremely important to safeguard the disabled person against that happening. Also very important is the Government's proposal for local authorities to allow individuals to supplement whatever they receive as a direct payment from their own resources. In all such cases, however, local authorities should not be allowed to reassess what the individual can afford and then demand an increased contribution.
As Ministers know, there is already widespread concern about the failure of some local authorities to understand their legal duties to provide services for disabled people, about which I questioned the Health Secretary on 29 February. My parliamentary question asked him
if he has now considered the implications to local authorities of the High Court's decision in relation to Gloucestershire county council's refusal to restore care services to over 1,000 disabled people in the county; and if he plans to issue further guidance to local authorities on the effect of section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following the High Court's decision",
to which the Minister's reply was:
I have no current plans to issue further guidance on this matter."—[Official Report, 29 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 695.]
That reply was not well received by disability organisations that have been in touch with me since last Thursday and I hope that it will be urgently reviewed by the Secretary of State. Very clearly there is need now for clear further guidance to be issued.
The other issue relating to direct payments is that of means testing. It seems generally accepted by the Government and organisations of disabled people that it

will be essential to ensure that local authorities apply the same test of means for direct payments as they would apply for their own services. Allowing different means tests to be applied would enable a local authority to sway the decision of a client, either towards their services or towards a direct payment depending on their political proclivities. This would be manifestly wrong, but I believe it could happen unless, in addition to the guidance which the Government propose under section 7, the Bill's wording in relation to the assessment of a contribution is identical to the wording used in connection with the assessment of a contribution towards local authority services in section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, ("reasonably practical for him to pay").
Finally, the third area for improvement of the Bill relates to who a disabled person can pay to provide the help that she or he needs. At present, the Government want to limit those that can be paid. The idea is to avoid what they describe somewhat euphemistically as creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis—as Baroness Cumberlege expressed it in another place on 15 January. To achieve this the Government intend to exclude all so-called relatives living in the same household.
But I have serious worries concerning lodgers and others and the wording the Government use in referring to people in the same household. As paragraph 24 of the consultation document explained, such people are not to be paid
unless
they
are people who have been specifically recruited to be live-in personal assistants.
This would preclude a person who has someone other than a close relative living in the household—for example, a lodger or friend—from arranging with that person to become her or his helper. The wording suggests that they would have to be hired as a helper and then given accommodation. This is far too restrictive. It would also rule out direct payments to people who take in lodgers whom they subsequently decide to hire as helpers. There would be nothing improper in that and in my view it should be allowed.
In passing I want here to urge that care be taken in deciding who can be classified as a partner. Are gay and lesbian couples to be included? How will disabled people be protected from a local authority that is over-officious or intrusive in determining whether a partner is a partner properly so called? In regard to people not living in the same household, the Government intend to exclude so-called close relatives. The problem with their list is that it includes some who, in the real world, cannot really be termed close. The surviving partner of a stepson is an example. Thus I suggest that the list of "close relatives" should be re-examined and reduced.
It might seem reasonable to exclude anyone who is already providing assistance to a disabled person and for whom extra help is sought from the local authority. But this could exclude people receiving the invalid care allowance and would not be appropriate in all cases. It also raises the issue of how the invalid care allowance will be treated in relation to direct payments, about which so far there has been an ominous silence.
To avoid the difficulty the Government describe as creating pressure for informal care to be put on a formal contractual basis, while also avoiding a hard list of excluded relatives, it might be possible to put the onus of proof on the local authority to show that the person the disabled person sought to pay would provide the requisite care informally. In my view it should be possible, without treating it as an exceptional case as the consultation document proposed, to employ a close relative who is—and will remain—in residence elsewhere. This is particularly important in relation to emergencies. The consultation document sets down in paragraph 3 that disabled people will be expected to make sensible arrangements so that they have adequate cover in an emergency, for example if one of their usual assistants is taken ill.
What more sensible course of action could there be than to ask a relative to stand by for emergencies? The current proposals would preclude payment to the relative in these circumstances—whether living in the same household or elsewhere—and I believe this is unreasonable. The practice of employing family members not living in the same household has worked well with the independent living fund, to which the right hon. Member for Chelsea also referred, and I see no reason why it should not work as well in the case of direct payments.
Indeed, if complications are not to arise, I see it as essential that the same rules should apply to direct payments as to ILF payments. Those then are my concerns and hopes for improvements to this Bill. To sum up, the measure is a welcome advance for disabled people but it needs improving to make the five-year wait for it seem genuinely worth while.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I welcome this day as a combination of absolution and delight—absolution as it was because I insisted on pressing my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), then Minister for Health, about direct payments during the debates on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 that she went away and discovered that the several schemes that were already in existence were illegal. The disability organisations have been extraordinarily kind to me in the long wait to re-establish what we all fondly imagined was a model which could be easily copied, and I am pleased about that. I am also delighted because this is a place where banging one's head against a brick wall is an occupational hazard and in my experience it is seldom that the wall comes off worse. I am pleased that on this occasion perseverance has paid off.
I welcome the Bill and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has worked extremely hard behind the scenes to turn what at one point was a fairly adamant refusal into the Bill that we now have. That is very good.
It is always fascinating to listen to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who made some kind remarks about me personally. When he represents a single interest as an Opposition spokesman, he is keen to ensure that standards of national uniformity in provision are laid down, but when speaking as a representative of Scotland he is equally anxious to allow local autonomy and discretion. Those two counter-currents sometimes get him into a little difficulty.
I believe that the Bill is excellent.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good speech, but will he take some of the blame for the views that he attributes to me when I speak for Scotland since he served at the Scottish Office as a very distinguished civil servant for a long time?

Mr. Rowe: It was an experience that I greatly enjoyed. It taught me a great deal about the pitfalls of devolution, and also the great benefits of being an administrator in a much smaller country than England. One at least gets to know people very much better. So I am ambivalent, too.
I wish to echo what one or two people have said. I also wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the idea that the Government propose to limit the operation of the scheme partly because they are not quite confident yet that everyone who would be judged eligible for it would be able to manage it. The Government's anxieties are targeted on the wrong people: it is not disabled people who might not be competent at managing their affairs—the real anxiety is that there will be a wide discrepancy between those local authorities which already have considerable experience of running such schemes and those which do not.
Arbitrarily to exclude disabled people from the operation of the Bill in order to address those discrepancies is a serious mistake. It would be much better to require local authorities to put forward a scheme which was an effective way to use the powers in the Bill. Those local authorities which already have experience would automatically be accredited instantly and those which have not would have a chance to learn from other authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) suggested, local authorities would be pressured by their local disability organisations to get themselves to the starting line as quickly as possible. I would infinitely prefer that approach to arbitrary categories of exclusion.
It would be a rash Back Bencher and, I suspect, a rash Minister who would suggest that if you, Madam Speaker, were to encounter some disabling accident—one hopes that you will not—you would be incapable of managing your own services. Yet the implication of the Bill is that a person in that situation would be incapable. That is very dangerous.

Mr. Bowis: We should have a special new clause for Madam Speaker.

Mr. Rowe: The question of whether members of the family or the extended family could be paid for delivering care is interesting. My first inclination was that they should be paid. It is a ridiculous thought that one could not employ someone whom one knew well and trusted. I thought of hon. Members who frequently employ their wives or husbands as secretaries or research assistants. That works extremely satisfactorily. But then I read more widely and realised that the objections of the British Medical Association and many others were based on the risk that by making the household wholly dependent on that income, we would run the risk of institutionalising the care of the disabled person in a way that would reduce his or her freedom of action. Those objections have great force.
I would resist what in my youth were called tables of kindred and affinity and were printed in the middle pages of the prayer book. During sermons, I used to amuse myself by discovering which relatives were allowed to marry within the family circle. I do not want to see tables of kindred and affinity produced to show who can and cannot be paid for care, but the assurance that has already been given—that discretion will be used—should be generously interpreted when manifestly the right person is employed to provide care.
A number of organisations have asked about respite care. The consultation document appeared to suggest that only four weeks' respite care a year could be provided through direct payments. If keeping people out of expensive residential care would be assisted by more generous provision of respite care, that ought to be allowed. I hope that one consequence of this highly desirable measure will be the creation a new raft of paid caring services, which will drive up standards if—and I say this carefully—those services are subject to proper scrutiny. The opportunity to train and recruit people into demanding but often satisfying work will be greatly strengthened by the Bill, but people choosing whom to employ are more vulnerable even than if they were receiving services direct from the local authority. I am in favour of registering domiciliary care services and having them subject to proper scrutiny.
A number of us have worked hard over a long period to achieve the Bill, which is well timed and most welcome. It is gratifying to hear the arguments that we strove to make being put with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). He would be a welcome addition to the ranks of civil servants we shall need north of the border when we establish a Scottish Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider coming back to Scotland to help in that capacity. Even a majority of 19,600 may not be sacrosanct in the next general election. We heard an excellent speech also—as one would expect—from the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). Both he and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent have distinguished experience of the subject. As a member of the Committee of Selection, I cannot resist making the observation that both the right hon. Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent were, in different ways, making an argument for extending the scope of the Bill. When the Committee of Selection meets to appoint the Standing Committee on the Bill, I will put in a word for both of them as their contributions would be most welcome.
Although I welcome the Bill, it is only a framework and does not create new rights. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been at pains over many years to use their experience in Parliament to establish more rights for people with disabilities. I am sure that that is the way forward, but the Bill falls short. Nevertheless, it is to be welcomed for making improved provision and it will be put to good use.
When the Bill was published, Community Care commented that it was

a piece of legislation so thin it is virtually transparent".
I hope that it will be improved in Committee, when I am sure that Members will take the opportunity to press the points made in the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which set out the main concerns. We shall want to return to those issues in Committee.
All local authorities should consider implementing the provisions of the Bill. As the right hon. Member for Chelsea said, there is no presumption—let alone a legal right—to ensure that that will happen. However, I hope that such a high level of expectation will be built up that all local authorities will get around to providing schemes, even though one appreciates that local authorities are under financial pressure this year and will also be so next year.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West was right to comment that it is a shame that we do not have the advantage of the Government's reactions to the consultation process, to which there were 300 contributions. Those contributions, and the Government's reaction to them, would be of great value. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the time frame for access to the Government's deliberations. If the documents include some that would be of assistance to interested hon. Members—I am not talking about those marked for the Minister's eyes only—perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put copies in the Library. Hon. Members could then benefit from the work of pressure groups, interested parties and other knowledgeable and experienced people.
I have a fetish about negative and affirmative regulations. The main part of the Bill, and most of the arguments that we shall be making, centre on the contents of the regulations. Following the Jopling reforms, it is slightly harder to get a debate on the Floor of the House using the negative procedure. It is not clear to me from the Bill whether the regulations are affirmative. The regulations contain wide and general powers—not just specific regulations limiting the scope of eligibility. One clause contains an all-embracing power for general and related purposes, which always makes me suspicious. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the affirmative procedure applies so that we may have an opportunity to consider the regulations without having to table prayers.
The Minister gave ball park figures for the number of people who will be affected by the measure—30,000 in one category and 4,000 in another. Presumably those figures relate to England and Wales.

Mr. Bowis: Just England.

Mr. Kirkwood: That is helpful to know. That will help us to estimate the number of people who may or may not be affected. We can make some informed guesses about Scotland. The provisions for Scotland in terms of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 will have to be given special consideration in Committee.
I emphasise the importance of effective support services. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent said that people with disabilities are, by and large, perfectly able to look after themselves and that that is right and proper. However, requiring some of them to pick their way through their liabilities and duties as employers without back-up and assistance is something else. The work of the Disablement Income Group is essential to make the Bill work properly.


Even if it cost a little bit of money in pump priming to set up the pilot schemes, to get best practice and to disseminate the results, it would be money well spent. The right hon. Member for Chelsea said—I am sure that he is right—that the Policy Studies Institute survey shows that the scheme, if operated properly, could save money in the long run, but it will take time to get there and it will take money to set it up properly.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is on an important point. Does he agree that any money that is available, whether it is from savings made as a result of the local authority providing direct payments rather than services directly, or whether it is extra money, should be most profitably used by disability organisations rather than by local authorities?

Mr. Kirkwood: I agree with that. I hope that we shall return to that point in substance and at length in Committee.
I am puzzled as to why the Bill—in clause 1(2), I believe—introduces liabilities for local authorities to examine financial circumstances. It puzzles me that the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—in section 47, I believe—treated the liabilities for local authorities to examine people's financial circumstances differently from this Bill. I do not understand why we are introducing new provisions that were not deemed necessary in 1990. The provisions, which of course give discretion to local authorities, have been working reasonably well. There is an argument about charging and the difficulties that it is creating, but I am puzzled as to why there should be a difference in approach between the 1990 Act and the Bill. There might be a perfectly obvious answer—

Mr. Bowis: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: Perhaps one is about to come in my direction.

Mr. Bowis: I do not know whether it is obvious, but the simple answer is that it is merely trying to put on a level playing field those who receive services and those who receive direct payments. The discretionary charge applies to both.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am nervous about that, but I do not want to pursue the point further, as we may have further opportunities to do that. I suspected that that was the answer, but we have to be careful about the way in which it works in practice.
I return to a point that the Minister may not have picked up in my earlier intervention. I am still slightly nervous about this aspect. In Scotland, under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there are schemes which already permit direct payments. There is still concern there—from anecdotal evidence by people who know more about the detail than I do—that some schemes might fall foul of the regulations.
I listened carefully to the helpful intervention earlier from the Minister, who said, if I understood correctly, that nothing in the Bill will prohibit any legal schemes which currently exist. If that is also true for Scotland, I am content; if it is not, I am worried.

Mr. Bowis: I can make the hon. Gentleman content: the schemes to which he refers—cash payments in emergencies—are not affected by the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: In that case, I am happy to sit down. Before doing so, however, I congratulate the Government and hon. Members who have been fighting the good fight. It is a start. I hope that the prediction of the right hon. Member for Chelsea that this is something on which we can build will be borne out in fact.

Sir Andrew Bowden: It was indeed sad news when the House heard that Lord Jay had died. It was my privilege to have known him in my younger days. I know that he gave great service to the House and to the nation. He will also be missed as a member of the House of Lords chess team. Invariably, when I played him, representing the Commons, I lost. He will be missed.
We heard a steady speech, as always, from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I find it difficult to disagree with much of what he said, except on one point, on which I must correct him. I can assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will have a substantial majority at the next election. If he did not, I would be very concerned about my own seat.
Attitudes to the disabled have changed fundamentally during the 25 years that it has been my privilege to serve in the House. The Government deserve considerable credit for the progress they have made in helping to act as a catalyst to bring about those changes. The Bill is another substantial step forward in the right direction. I know that, initially, and perhaps for too long, the Government had reservations, but they have now overcome them, and we can make yet another step forward for the disabled.
It is a fundamental right of disabled people in our country to be able to control their lives in their own way to a maximum degree, as individuals and through their recognised organisations. The House will be interested to know that, in Brighton, there is an influential group known as the Brighton Association of Tenants with Disabilities. It is a strong, effective body, led by a determined and courageous chairman, Max Vaughan. It has fought for many years for disabled people's rights, against anybody who it feels has not been helping and co-operating. I have no doubt that it will greatly welcome and recognise the strengths of the Bill, which will increase choice and increase disabled people's rights.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the Government must clarify, and quickly, the question of eligibility. It is unacceptable to the great majority of hon. Members to restrict the eligibility criteria on the grounds of age or type of disability. A high percentage of disabled people are older people. There must be no age discrimination.
People whose disabilities begin after 65 already feel discriminated against. They are unable to obtain any benefits towards the cost of mobility. They are not able to make claims for financial support from the independent living fund. Many older people who receive community care services find that their local authorities offer less support—either in fewer services, or services to a lower


value—for those over 65 than for those under 65. These distinctions are made purely on the basis of age, and that is wrong.
If age discrimination is not eliminated from the Bill, or if the Government do not make a very clear and positive statement before the Bill comes back to the House, I shall find it very difficult, if not impossible, to support it on Third Reading. I hope that the matter can be clarified when the Bill goes into Committee.
I now come to two other important points. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that the Government will support and help in every way to establish schemes to advise, assist and help direct payment recipients to buy services. That will be vital for the local authorities that have had no experience of operating such schemes.
That will also be vital for a large number of individuals who will have the basic common sense and experience of life to handle their own finances but who will need detailed help. That is where local authorities will have a very important role to play. I do not ask my hon. Friend to deal with that in great detail in his winding-up speech, because I have no doubt that he will give further details of the scheme in Committee.
I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify a point relating to direct payments. Surely there is no question of such payments being considered capital or income; that would be fundamentally unfair.

Mr. Bowis: I am happy to confirm that, but, if clarification is needed, it will be provided.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I thank my hon. Friend.
Independent living establishes dignity and self-respect. Wherever possible, individuals must have the right to manage their own care services and organise their lives to suit their needs and preferences. I am delighted to support the Bill, and hope to be able to support it on Third Reading as well.

7 pm

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I, too, welcome the Bill—as, I am sure, do most disabled people.
In 1994–95, statistics issued by Scope showed that 72 per cent. of disabled people wanted more independence, and 59 per cent. wanted more control over their everyday lives. Most local authority social services departments also welcome the Bill: most are committed to the principles of empowering users and carers, and offering them maximum flexibility and real choice in respect of the services that they receive. That view has the full support of disabled people, many of whom find dealing with social services a nightmare. That has been particularly true over the past few years, when resources have been scarce, to say the least.
One of my constituents has cared for her severely disabled daughter for more than 30 years. Virtually everything has to be done for the disabled girl: caring for her has been more than a full-time job for her parents. The mother wrote to the social services department in April 1994:
Dear Mr. Brookes
It gives me no pleasure at all to write to you about this matter.
I remember the first meeting I went to at the Abbey Day Centre on care in the community and for the first time in Karen's life I felt like the future was looking better for carers like myself. After

reading carers magazine and hearing that families like mine will have assessments made, I decided to phone for an assessment. All I asked for was that if there was a problem here, I could ask Social Services to provide extra care for Karen from Crossroads … Since the third visit from the Social worker Crossroads said they would help me to have a week's holiday so I asked if Social Services would pay so much towards the extra care.
I cannot understand how money appears to be available for services I do not want, but it seems so difficult for a service I do want. I would rather have 2 hours of care that I do want than 10 hours of care that I do not want.
I only hope that the Bill will prevent the repetition of problems such as the one experienced by that frustrated mother.
Paying disabled people money directly, so that they can purchase services themselves, is the ideal way of empowering them. In the past, many social services departments have examined ways of skirting round existing legislation—for instance, voucher or brokerage schemes. As has already been pointed out, at least 60 direct payment schemes are already working successfully in some areas. The Bill, however, will end the legal anomaly that prevents local authorities from making any payment to a third party in connection with the provision of community care.
Although I support the discretion being given to local authorities to decide whether to offer direct payments, and the ability of people to decide whether to manage their own care, I firmly believe that the Government are making a huge error in allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding whole categories of disabled people. In limiting the option of direct payments to those with physical disabilities aged between 18 and 65, the Bill itself becomes discriminatory: it discriminates against those aged 65 and over, and against those with learning difficulties.
As a former headmaster of a school for children with special educational needs and, in particular, learning difficulties, I find it extremely distasteful that the Government appear to be discriminating against an entire section of the community, regardless of individual circumstances. People with learning difficulties should not be excluded automatically; they should be allowed to exercise the direct payment option, if they are able to do so, and should be given all the support they need.
I also think it absurd that people who may need care in the community as much as any other group—those over 65, especially the disabled—are to be disqualified by the regulations. I conclude that the disqualification is based on the fact not that those people cannot understand or decide on their needs, but that such care would cost more money. As always, well-intentioned legislation has been ruined by the Government's failure to provide the necessary funds.
Some schemes that are running successfully now will not be within the terms of the new regulations—for example, schemes that include people over 65 and/or people with learning difficulties. Will such schemes be allowed to continue? I was not sure of the answer earlier in the debate. I am delighted to see that the Minister is nodding, but I hope that that will be made clear in the Bill; it certainly is not clear now.
It would be nonsense not to include such groups, especially as, under the proposed new regulations, local authorities already have discretion to award payments to those who are "able and willing". That in itself gives


enough discretion to authorities, and will ensure that all who can and want to participate will be able to do so. If the Government are not prepared to include those groups in the Bill immediately, as they should, the least they should do is agree to a review of the initial scheme once it is up and running, with the aim of adding other groups as quickly as possible.
I am pleased to learn that individuals may receive a mix of direct payments and services. That will allow increased flexibility in the design of care packages, and may also be important in ensuring that the developing community care market is not destabilised. I fear, however, that the legislation could become a charter for unscrupulous providers. We have seen such developments in some of the private nursing homes that have been set up over the past few years. When an agency or commercial provider is used, it should be one that has been approved or accredited in some way.
A rigid inspection service should also be introduced, either by local authorities or by the Government, to ensure that a high-quality service is provided. I have no doubt that some people will seek to exploit the new system, seeing it as a way of making easy money. The last thing we want is the exploitation of disabled people. Most people in receipt of community care have limited resources, and must be given value for money; monitoring will be necessary to ensure that that money is spent properly. Once money had been spent, it would be almost impossible to recover if it had been spent improperly. Local authorities need the power to keep an eye on things.
I agree in principle that close relatives should not be paid to provide a service. I firmly believe that we all have family responsibilities and obligations, but regulations should allow recipients to purchase services to provide some respite for informal carers, and allow them to recompense neighbours, friends and, in some instances, relatives who provide regular and substantial assistance.
I should like to quote a letter to Crossroads from the same lady whom I quoted earlier. It shows her frustration and difficulties in obtaining respite care for her daughter. It states:
Dear Ros,
Ref. to your visit regarding assessment of Karen, I cannot go on holiday without writing this letter.
Monday's visit was different and after Tuesday's phone call; when I had time to think about what you had said, when I said I did not want a new lady coming to visit here, you said that if I was hoping for respite care and hoping to have a weekend away for eg., then I would have to see this lady because you could not see the time when Crossroads could provide this care. I hope you realise that at St. Nicholas Church Hall recently when someone told Mr. P. Brookes that caring for someone at home was made more complicated by the system of offering care which consisted of a bit of help here eg. District Nurse, a bit there Dom. Care, a bit from ILF, a bit from Crossroads, and now you say a bit from this lady you know … The cost of care for Karen while we are on holiday is a lot of money but 4 years ago I know it was costing £600 a week for someone like Karen to live in a home for the severely disabled. Also this is the first time in her 32 years that help has been given to us so that we can have a holiday knowing Karen is being properly cared for in her own home.


As for what you have offered, forget it, Karen has to have such personal things done to her just to keep her going, she wants continuity in her care, not anybody or everybody.
I hope that that moving letter to Crossroads will end the frustration that people such as that lady feel in failing to obtain proper respite care.
Local authorities should be allowed the discretion to decide bona fide arrangements. They should be allowed the discretion to decide any period of temporary residential or respite care that is needed. To fix a specific number of weeks in one year is inflexible, and does not cover for the unexpected.
My understanding of the Bill is that, if a disabled person wished to use direct payments to employ someone as a care assistant, they would have to take on all an employer's responsibilities. For example, they would have to understand the workings of tax deductions, national insurance, employer liability insurance, and sick pay and holiday pay. That is a formidable task, and could put many disabled people off the scheme.
If my assumptions are correct, surely those people should not have those responsibilities, and a system should be devised to avoid it. If that is not possible, however, it is obvious that a huge amount of support will be needed for someone who has never had to hire or fire before. The Government should make it clear in the regulations how that support will be organised and provided.
As I said, if there is not adequate support, many people may be put off from using the scheme. Consequently, direct payments would be likely to reach only a limited number of people, which is the last thing that we want. Over the years, the Government have produced some reasonable reforms in the special needs sector—I admit that, and have congratulated them on it. I think in particular of special educational needs.
The Government have always failed, however, in that they have never provided the resources to ensure that those reforms were successful. What disturbs me about these proposals is that, unless adequate resources are made available for community care—clearly, they are not at present—the new system could become a cheap and easy option for some local authorities, or lead some to cut services.
Equally, the Bill must not become a means in some sectors of passing responsibility for an underfunded, failing community care system to disabled persons. Inadequate funding could fail the system and do the opposite of what the Bill hopes to achieve. It could threaten disabled people's independence.
As the Government will not make new resources available, that will inevitably restrict the number of people who can take advantage of the new law after it is enacted. The introduction of direct payments may further highlight the existing lack of consumer choice. I am pleased, however, to support the Bill, and I hope that, in Committee, most of the problems and difficulties that are foreseen can be ironed out in a reasonable way.
This is a perfect opportunity for disabled persons to become independent—so that they do not have to rely on the generosity of others—and to be allowed to do what they want, when they want; so let us hope that the House gets it right.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am delighted to support this important Bill, which represents a breakthrough in care for disabled people. I congratulate all the people who, over the years, have campaigned in the House, in the other place and outside on the success


of these measures. I congratulate the Disablement Income Group and other lobby groups that have campaigned for so long, the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has been campaigning for more than six years, and Lord McColl in the other place, who has been pressing for more than three years. I have supported the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) in delegations to the Department of Health to press for these measures.
I congratulate the Minister because he has achieved a Government U-turn and overcome the ideology of the Treasury mandarins. This is an important breakthrough because, in effect, it establishes a decentralisation of the welfare state and allows local authorities to make discretionary cash payments within the constraint of an overall financial budget. We may view it as a model for ways in which the welfare state could develop.
The person who deserves the greatest recognition for his achievement is the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). The independent living fund was the pioneering achievement and showed how disabled people could manage their care so well. That laid the foundation for the schemes in many local authorities, and for the Bill.
The independent living fund showed how successful such schemes could be. I was amazed at the report entitled "Cashing in on Independence" produced a year or two ago by the Policy Studies Institute. It shows the extent of those benefits. It states:
The findings indicate that support arrangements financed by direct/indirect payments are, on average, between 30 and 40 per cent. cheaper than equivalent service based support. The average hourly unit cost of support for people receiving payments is £5.18 compared to £8.52 for service users.
That is a massive increase in value for money. I am sorry only that the Government seem to wish to restrict benefits of that magnitude.
Cash benefits are not the only benefits. Others include the increase in control by service users, greater reliability, flexibility and better personal relationships that develop through being able to choose and make decisions. All those are massive benefits, and we should not restrict them.
I am surprised that the Minister seems to have given in to the Treasury mandarins in that respect. There is no purpose in having any restrictions. Let us just scrap them. Why should 65-year-olds be denied those benefits? They have had a lifetime's experience of managing their lives, so surely they can manage care packages as well as anyone. Often, mentally handicapped people need the flexibility of those services. Obviously, their carers would make the decisions for them, but they need those benefits.
I hope that the Minister will reflect further. He has the benefit of the consultation programme. Let us hope that some revelations about that will be made before the Bill's Third Reading because it might help to make his mind up. Not many people will have written in, in response to the consultation paper, to say that they favour the restriction on 65-year-olds. I would not be surprised if there were a 100 per cent. response against that restriction. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked if the consultation responses could be placed in the Library. If the Minister did that, we could identify exactly how many felt that we should remove the restrictions.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) has already said that he will reserve his position for Third Reading, and like him, I hope that, by that time,

the Government will have changed their mind. I think that everybody should benefit from those massive increases in value for money. What is to be gained in trying to stop that?
We have said that local authorities can have discretion, so let us leave them to act as gatekeepers, not try to second-guess them. The Bill is a challenge for local authorities, and rather than putting on blanket restrictions. the Government should let local authorities use their discretion. Many authorities are running schemes already. Last week, Bolton's director of social services told me that he saw no reason for a restriction affecting people over 65 in Bolton, and I am sure that that is felt throughout the country.
I support the Government's position on the difficult question of relatives as paid carers. In the guidance, there should be a strong presumption against using relatives as paid carers, but I was pleased to hear the Minister say that there would be discretion too. It is important that local authorities should be able to use discretion in individual cases.
I shall mention one interesting constituency case—the difficult care case of Paul Hargreaves, who will be 28 next week, and who is severely mentally and physically handicapped. His care is managed by his 70-year-old mother. In her own words, she is "worn out" by caring for him. Indeed, it is extraordinary that our society relies upon a 70-year-old woman to manage the care of such a severely handicapped young man.
Paul's mother, Norah, had an excellent carer arranged through the independent living fund. She became fond of him, and decided that it would be mutually advantageous if they married. Unfortunately, if they had done so, the independent living fund would immediately have stopped all the payments. That example demonstrates why discretion is needed.
Paul's mother receives £325 a week from the independent living fund, and has a team of three carers who provide nearly 100 hours a week, but no care is provided for Paul during the night. You can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how difficult it is for a 70-year-old lady to try to cope with her 28-year-old severely handicapped son on her own, without outside help, during the night.
I hope that the Bill will enable the local authority to provide an extra financial care package, so that Paul's mother can buy in care to help during the night as well. She has said how much she appreciates being able to manage the care herself. She much prefers the flexibility of the cash arrangement that she now has, but she still needs to be able to buy rather more care.
I do not wish to go through all the other items in the consultation paper; no doubt they will come up in Committee. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said that he might have some influence on the Committee of Selection, so he might like to include me, if he wants another name to put forward for the Committee.
I do not see why there should be a four-week restriction on respite care. Again, local authorities can be left to make up their minds on such matters. As for support services, local authorities should be encouraged to provide them, and voluntary organisations could also do so.
Indeed, I see no reason why local authorities which provide a support service in their own areas should not offer the service outside their areas too. If a local authority


in one area could not offer a support service, or if an adjacent authority offered an especially good service, it should be easy for the carer or the recipient of the care to organise care through the support service in that neighbouring authority. Such arrangements need not be limited to one's own local authority. Support services can be provided equally well by outside agencies, and there could be a degree of competition.
As for regulation, in Bolton there is now a voluntary regulation scheme. I would be inclined to leave that in place, but obviously if there were substantiated fears that abuses were taking place, we would have to consider statutory regulation. However, care units are often very small, and we should not try to impose too much regulation on them.
In conclusion, I call upon the Government to scrap all the eligibility rules. Let us forget all about them, so we do not have to worry about what is tucked away in the regulations concerning 65-year-olds, and mentally handicapped people, even if it can be demonstrated that they can manage.
I beg the Minister to forget the mandarins behind him and simply to listen to the people. They will tell him clearly enough. Obviously, in some quarters of the Government there has been a grudging acceptance of what they say. On the question of mandatory requirements, I would give local authorities three years, or at the most five, to get to grips with the voluntary and discretionary arrangements now being offered, and then call upon them to operate direct payments on a mandatory basis.

Mr. John Heppell: Like everyone else, I start by welcoming the Bill, but I drag hon. Members back a little way by reminding them that we are now passing a law to allow people to do what they have been doing for years anyway. We are talking about direct payments, but they first came into operation in 1981. The first centre for independent living was set up in 1983, and the independent living fund in 1988.
Schemes have been set up all over the country. The councils in Wiltshire, Derbyshire, Avon, Leicestershire, Hampshire and Merton all set up schemes. I am pleased that those councils now support the idea of direct payments, but we must remember that such payments have already been working for a long time.
I have some concerns about the Bill, but in view of the time, and of the fact that some of my hon. Friends want to speak, I shall stick to just a few points. First, I know that the Bill will extend choice for people with disabilities, but I want to extend that choice to everyone with disabilities, not just to a few people in certain categories. Otherwise, we shall be legislating to bring about more discrimination.
The reason for the eligibility argument has much to do with the success of existing direct payment schemes and of the independent living fund itself. The initial estimate was that demand for the fund would not exceed 1,250 people overall, but by 1993 more than 21,000 people were taking advantage of the scheme. The arguments against people over 65 and people with learning disabilities are really the Government saying, "We do not dare open the floodgates." Such an argument causes me, as well as disability organisations and people with disabilities, much concern.
I understand that, nationally, 30 per cent. of all current schemes are designed for people over 65. My local authority, Nottinghamshire, now has 128 schemes in which indirect payments are made, and 78 of them are for people over 65, so more than 50 per cent. of the schemes that operate direct payments through the route of third parties are being run for the benefit of people over 65.
I want those schemes to be not only protected but extended. The people involved with the schemes are happy with them. The social services departments and the local authorities as a whole are happy, and, as is more important, the people with disabilities who receive the services are happy too. Those schemes need to be extended. However, I must admit that it seems strange to see local authorities acting like drug barons or gangsters, and laundering their money through a third person to get it to the person who wants to spend it. To me that seems wrong.
There is plenty of discrimination against people over 65 already—for instance, in terms of social security benefits. I recognise the historical reasons for that, but I hope that, over time, it will be phased out. I do not want us to introduce legislation that causes more discrimination.
I am also concerned that people who have learning disabilities will not be allowed to take part in any scheme. According to the independent living fund, 18 per cent. of its customers are people who have learning disabilities. I have managed to establish that in my authority there are at least six schemes in which people with learning disabilities take part. At the moment, those people make decisions about what council services they want, and I cannot see any reason why they cannot make decisions about direct payments.
In Nottinghamshire, 19 people who are infected with HIV are on schemes. In many respects, direct payments would be ideal for them because the sort of service that they want—some befriending, and a little social care—does not fit easily into the usual mode of local government provision.
All ILF recipients found that the ability to control their personal assistance, and therefore their lives, improved their quality of life. Many of them also said that they would have liked more practical support, especially in the early stages of independent living. It is a shame that the ILF money was not ring-fenced for independent living when it was transferred to local government because it has drifted into councils' general budgets and disappeared. We ought to try to pluck some of that money back out and persuade local authorities to use it to kick-start local organisations into setting up personal assistance support schemes.
Employing people is difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, it involves many tasks such as drawing up job descriptions, advertising, short-listing, interviewing, recruiting, drawing up contracts of employment, sorting out tax and national insurance, setting rates of pay and considering insurance and health and safety. When I became a Member of Parliament, it was a nightmare being an employer for the first time in my life. We therefore need to ensure that people who become employers have the proper support, and not only when someone is first taken on. People will need on-going support because new problems will arise as the disabled user identifies new needs.
It is almost certain that disputes and tension will arise between the employer and the employee, as I suspect anybody who has ever been an employer knows. It is the nature of the relationship. That is fine when one is employing somebody to fix a car, and it is probably okay when one is employing somebody as a secretary, but when the person being employed is relied on to get his employer out of bed in the morning or to dress or feed him, it is understandable that the employer will feel vulnerable without support.
There are already many schemes to provide such support, but, unfortunately, they vary. There are reasons for the variety: local authorities interpret the law differently, different local structures and priorities affect the way in which services operate, the degree to which an active disability or voluntary organisation operates and what relationship it has with the local authority differs, and geographical location is a factor. There are generally more personal assistance support schemes in urban areas and more in the south of the country than the north.
It is important to differentiate, for anybody who might be getting confused, between a personal assistance support scheme and a third-party arrangement. The third-party arrangement acted only as a go-between; a means of laundering the money. It usually took the form of a voluntary organisation, which paid the money directly to the disabled person. No support or other service was provided, apart from the administration of the payment. The personal assistance scheme, in contrast, should provide information, advice and support from the moment that somebody is considering direct payments, and it should continue—sometimes indefinitely.
The Bill might make the need for third-party arrangements unnecessary, but I believe, and I think that people with disabilities know, that if the legislation is to work effectively, personal assistance support schemes are essential. Without such support schemes, we would deny the opportunity of direct payments to the majority of people who would like to take advantage of them.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I give the Bill a cautious welcome, because although it reflects a welcome move towards independent living, such a move is not reflected in other elements of Government community care policy. On many occasions, the Minister has heard me express my worry about the way in which in the 1980s the Government spent a huge amount of money expanding institutional care at the expense of domiciliary care. They spent £10 billion on resurrecting institutional care for disabled and elderly people, yet such care was on its way out in the late 1970s.
One can speculate on what might have been achieved with just a small portion of that £10 billion of income support and supplementary benefit payments paid to people in care homes if it had been spent on schemes promoting the idea of independent living. I reinforce the point that the community care changes did not enhance independent living as they ought to have done, for the simple reason that the Government were so involved with the ideology of the privatisation of care and with encouraging the independent sector that they forgot that the independent sector was primarily concerned with

institutional care. There has therefore been an in-built incentive to expand institutional care, when the real thrust of community care changes should have been about enhancing independent living.
Nevertheless, I am happy to join hon. Members in commending the Bill, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was in Committee in 1990 when he moved his amendment. I checked today to see whether I opposed it—unfortunately, I did not. I have been caught out previously for thinking several years later, "Perhaps that person was right." I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, however, that I had certain reservations about the amendment. That is because there are certain similarities between what is proposed in the Bill—and what was proposed in his amendment—and the proposed education voucher scheme. It has been a right-wing demand for many years that people should be able to purchase vouchers for services outside the public sector.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent knows, I was worried that, alongside the care changes that we were discussing—the introduction of an internal market in the health service—the measure could have been interpreted as yet another push towards the privatisation of welfare provision. I think that he understands that. I probably know him better now as being one of the more sane Conservative Members with whom I have had to deal. I respect the fact that he has persistently pursued the issue, and he deserves some credit for the fact that we are discussing the Bill tonight.
I was converted to the cause not by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent but by a woman whom I met here who was active—I believe that she still is—in the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People. I knew that she was called Rachel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) reminded me that she was called Rachel Hurst—a formidable campaigner on behalf of people with disabilities. She asked me—I shall not use her exact words for reasons of politeness—whether I could see to my own personal bodily functions. I answered that I had been able to manage that for some years. Her point was: should she not have the right to determine personally who administered such intimate tasks in her case because, as a disabled person, she was reliant on others to perform tasks concerning bodily functions? I certainly could not argue that she did not have that right. Inherent in what we are debating today is the right of people such as Rachel Hurst to take decisions that any one of us would want to take ourselves in similar circumstances. I would like to place on record my personal thanks to that woman for converting me to the cause all those years ago.
Since then, I have had opportunities—certainly during my time as an Opposition Front Bencher—to visit various parts of the country and see a range of schemes offered by independent living. Some, I suspect, might have been deemed illegal had people looked at them in detail, because local authorities made payments in spite of the Government's advice. I do not think that the Government—even this Government—would have objected had they looked at what was achieved by those payments and the way in which they were facilitating in so many people's lives an independence that would not otherwise have existed.
I pay tribute also to the chairman of the British Association of Social Workers, David Brandon, whom some hon. Members know. Along with a small number of people, he has been at the forefront of the campaign for service brokerage, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and others referred. Service brokerage is the concept whereby a broker acts on behalf of a person wanting to secure services, when that person may not have the capacity to act individually because of learning difficulties and may not have a carer acting on his behalf.
David Brandon introduced me to a lady—whose name I do not remember—who told me that she was the mother of a young woman with Down's syndrome. That young woman spent most of her childhood, adolescence and early adult life in a long-stay mental handicap hospital. Her mother said that, had even a portion of the public resources tied up in her daughter's care at that hospital been made available to secure services within the community, her daughter could have had independent living. That point was well made, and we must encompass within the legislation cases such as that young woman. It is totally wrong to exclude people with Down's syndrome or learning difficulties from the measure, as they should have equal rights to independent living. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with that.
When I was appointed to the Opposition Front Bench in 1993, the first document for which I was responsible in relation to the Labour party's policy on community care included a commitment for us to look at the idea of service brokerage and direct payments. By then, I was fully committed to the cause, and I listened to people who had seen exactly what that offered. I am happy that the Bill paves the way towards such a system.
I wish to deal briefly with the detail of the Bill. Like other hon. Members, I have certain reservations about one or two aspects, the first of which is the question of eligibility. We cannot sustain discrimination against other groups of disabled people—such as people with learning difficulties and people with a variety of different problems—in the legislation. The principle must apply to people other than those with purely physical disabilities, and most people in the Chamber would accept that.
In an intervention on the Minister, I said that people did not fall into nice and neat categories in relation to disability. Some people, sadly, have elements of mental disability, learning difficulties, mental health problems and occasionally mental illness alongside physical disabilities. We cannot therefore simply categorise, as the Government appear to be attempting. I accept that the consultation document is still being studied, and I hope that the Minister will genuinely reflect on this point in Committee. He is a fair man, and he understands that that is a reasonable point of concern.
In looking at people with learning difficulties, for example, the Committee can also ask questions about the issues of advocacy and brokerage where people may not be able to handle the employment of a carer. Those issues must be examined. I do not like the word "brokerage", but the principle of someone acting for a person] in receipt of services should be looked at in Committee. That ties in with a point raised by several hon. Members about enabling people to be good employers. I recall that when I floated the idea of direct payments in our policy document, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,

Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said to me—and he could say this—that not all disabled people are particularly nice. I understood his point. Sometimes a person employed by a disabled person may not have a good deal, and I hope that the Minister will listen to suggestions in Committee on that point.
It is wrong to exclude local authority services from the measure, and I do not think that anyone has referred to that in the debate. The Government do not allow local authorities to sell services, but I can think of situations where a positive choice of carer would be someone in the employment of a local authority. It would be wrong for a person who has the ability to obtain direct payments to be excluded from employing the person chosen simply because that person was employed by a local authority. I have perhaps misunderstood the measure, and the Minister may wish to comment, but the Bill excludes the purchase of services from those employed by a local authority, and that needs to be looked at in more detail.
I would also welcome the Minister's thoughts on whether discretionary power is appropriate, a subject to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) and others referred. The Audit Commission has produced a report that states that the delivery of community care services across the country is inconsistent in a variety of ways. In my area of West Yorkshire, certain authorities offer certain services, but others do not. Certain authorities charge for some provisions, but others do not. Sometimes, the charges are markedly different in different areas. The discretionary provision in the Bill will add to the inconsistencies, and that is not in the interests of people in receipt of services.
In concluding my detailed comments on the Bill, I wish to encourage the Minister to look at the registration and inspection of available care. The measure will increase the use of individuals providing services in the independent sector. The Minister well knows that there is no provision for the registration or inspection of domiciliary care. I introduced the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill three years ago, and the Minister's predecessor—the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—told me that the Government accepted the principle of registration and inspection for domiciliary care, but were conducting a review. That review has not been completed, three years later. It would be irresponsible of the House to pass the Bill without including within it proper safeguards to ensure that available care is inspected, registered and of good quality. The provisions will relate to the vulnerable and the isolated, many of whom are wide open to exploitation unless there is proper registration and inspection.
I give the Bill a cautious welcome. I hope that it reflects a change of direction in Government policy towards independent living. If that is so, I hope that there will be other related policy initiatives. The current organisational framework for the delivery of community care is outdated. It reflects a time when there were clear divisions between social care and nursing care. Those divisions no longer exist, yet we still have an organisational framework that reflects that rigid split. That is nonsensical.
There is another bee in my bonnet. I hope that we are about to move towards much more radical alternatives to institutional care along the lines that have been adopted in the Netherlands and in Denmark, where steps have been


taken to outlaw care homes. It seems demeaning to people to end up in warehousing facilities within institutions. That is an outdated concept.
Let us use the Bill to push ourselves forward to a time when we can say, "Yes, you need specific care, and you can have that care in your own home. If it is not possible to receive it in your home, you will be able to receive it within a homely environment, not an institution." I hope that the Bill marks a new approach. I welcome it with the reservations that I have mentioned. I hope also that the Minister has listened to the concerns that others and I have expressed.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The case for direct payments is supported by moral, practical and financial arguments, all of which point in the same direction. The moral argument, however, is the most important. The case for direct payments is most importantly expressed in terms of human dignity, personal freedom and civil rights.
Some hon. Members may have read the study published by Dr. Jenny Morris, entitled "Community Care or Independent Living?", in which in citing one of her case studies, she sets out the view of Maria, who talked to her about direct payments. She said:
It means I can get up in the morning when I want to, go to bed in the evening when I want to, go out when I want to and lead the kind of life that I want to … to not be reliant on my family and friends … to keep all that separate (so that) to them I'm me rather than someone who needs help.
There is an ambiguity in the term "care". We like to associate care with cherishing and loving people, and through that giving them the best support that we can. However, care has perhaps too often meant, in practical terms, something that is more akin to being taken care of and to being dealt with as a problem case.
Another of Jenny Morris's interviewees used the word "custodial" to describe the care that she had received. Too often, care has been somewhat too akin to institutionalisation within the community. It is not so with independent living. But if that is made possible through direct payments, services can be fitted to the needs of the individual disabled person rather than his or her needs being accommodated to the needs of the social services authority.
Direct payments are good for the disabled. With the best will in the world, social workers are unable to design packages of care that are as sensitive, flexible and precisely tailored to the needs of individual disabled persons as those that disabled people are able to create for themselves. Inevitably, social workers must juggle with the needs of a range of clients. They must work within the rigidities of bureaucratic life. I make no criticism of them for that. With direct payments, however, all concerned are released from such limitations.
Direct payments make it possible for the demands on families to be eased and for the stresses and burdens to be lightened. They are good for local authorities too, because they enable authorities to use the expensive time of skilled, professional staff to do the jobs that only they can do. It is absurd to have highly trained and qualified staff organising the lives of intelligent people who can do that perfectly well for themselves.
The financial argument reinforces the moral and practical ones. As the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) said, experience tells us that the cost of providing care that is organised by the disabled person personally with direct payments is about 30 to 40 per cent. less than the cost of providing local authority services, because administration overheads are avoided.
That is a great recommendation in itself for direct payments. I hope, however, that the Government will not be tempted to use that factor as an excuse for applying a further squeeze on the resources that are made available to social services departments.
It is emphasised in the 18th paragraph of the consultation document that a local authority shall not arbitrarily decide to make payments that are inadequate. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. After all, year after year the Treasury makes arbitrary decisions that lead to the making of inadequate payments, allowing only inadequate resources to be made available to social services departments. If local authorities are admonished by the Government and told not to behave in that way, I hope that the Government will take that lesson to heart themselves. It is an experience that we speak about with strong feeling in Warwickshire, where many of my constituents have recently experienced drastic increases in charges because of the inadequacy of the resources that are available for social services.
The Bill has been a long time coming, but I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea, who over a long period wanted policy to develop in the direction set in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible, of course, for the introduction of the independent living fund in 1988, which was a giant step towards making direct payments available to a wider range of disabled people. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on his determination to pursue such a policy through a private Member's Bill. I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), has for a long time been thoroughly sympathetic to the objective. I am sure that he is pleased to have been able to carry the day within the Department.
Perhaps it was implicit in the tone in which the Minister spoke earlier that he accepts that the Bill is somewhat restrictive. I believe that it is too restrictive. The consultation document tells us that direct payments are a "new and untested development". That is not so. About 60 local authorities are implementing direct payment schemes through third-party agencies. It is a few years since the directors of social services unanimously resolved that they would like to see legislation introduced to empower social services departments to make direct payments.
It is a shame, therefore, that people with learning difficulties, as it is proposed, should be excluded from the new freedom. That seems peculiarly unnecessary, given the experience of the independent living fund. After all, 18 per cent. of the ILF's cliehts are people with learning difficulties. They manage very well, provided that they have the advocacy, assistance and support services that the Government themselves envisage. If people with learning difficulties are to be excluded, will people with a history of mental illness be similarly excluded? I ask the Minister to comment on that now or later.
I share the regret that was expressed by several hon. Members, that people over 65 are to be excluded, at least initially. Some 37 per cent. of the beneficiaries of the


original independent living fund were people over the age of 65. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has pointed out that a high proportion of people who are visually impaired are over the age of 65. The blind and the partially sighted will feel that the existing inadequacies of community care are certain to be reinforced by this feature of the new policy. People over 65 are as likely to be fully capable of organising and managing their own budgets for personal care as are people under 25.
There is an irony in the consultation document. Section L states:
suitability for direct payments should be considered in a non-discriminatory manner for all eligible people requesting them.
However, section B sets out the Government's proposals for discrimination—the exclusion of people with learning difficulties and people over the age of 65. Age Concern has termed that "blatant age discrimination". If the Government consider that Age Concern is biased, perhaps they will heed the Law Commission, which recommended:
There should be a presumption against lack of capacity".
The Government's timidity is misplaced. There is a great deal of experience around. I hope that they will reflect carefully on the injustice and the dashing of hopes that their policy, as they at present intend it, will cause.
The Government want to give local authorities discretion as to whether they should run direct payment schemes at all. The very existence of that discretion will result in discrimination, which I regret. If the Government are to give local authorities such discretion, surely they do not need to double-bank by taking a discretion unto themselves as well, through the regulation-making power. Surely we do not want to pursue a discriminatory policy. The creation of a double discrimination, through central Government regulations and the scope that will be provided for local authorities to restrict their schemes, is deeply regrettable.
I hope that when the Government have considered the responses to the consultation, including this debate, they will, after all, be willing to espouse option (f) in the consultation paper:
All adults who are able and willing to manage direct payments (with help if necessary), with no age limit
should be eligible to be included in the schemes.
If the Government should feel unable to go that far, it is essential that they make it clear, formally and explicitly, that local authorities should not unreasonably refuse to operate direct payment schemes where there is demand for them. Where local authorities operate them, it should also be insisted that they do so according to clearly expressed criteria, consistently, not capriciously, applied. Disabled people need to know where they stand.
Local authorities would welcome guidelines from the Government. While we want experimentation and local innovation, it is essential that minimum national standards should be stipulated. Pauline Thompson—who has been rightly praised by the right hon. Member for Chelsea and who has done so much wonderful work in this field, both as a trustee of the original independent living fund and as director of the Disablement Income Group—has called for a national code of good practice. I hope that the Government will be willing to respond positively to that. I commend the DIG for the handbook that it has produced in timely fashion, entitled, "Facilitating and Supporting

Independent Living". I also appreciate the support of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People, for the guidance that it has produced to support independent living schemes.
It goes almost without saying, yet needs to be said, that local authorities must have adequate funding. It is their duty to fund the needs that they assess, but it has been a duty too often honoured in the breach. They need to supply the resources to enable disabled people to be employers—and good employers. The costs that need to be met must include the costs of recruitment, PAYE, national insurance, sick pay, holiday pay, insurance costs such as employer's liability insurance, and, in certain instances, redundancy costs. Many people will need to pay the fees of domiciliary care agencies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said that we need to consider the status of domiciliary care agencies carefully. For one thing, the VAT position is anomalous. I understand that there is exemption from VAT where an element of medically qualified supervision is associated with a domiciliary care agency, but not otherwise. All agencies should be exempted from VAT, provided that they are registered in a national scheme, such as that proposed by my hon. Friend, and subject to proper inspection.
Among the other costs that will need to be supported by local authorities are those of training, advice and advocacy. Local authorities will do well to give their support to user-led voluntary organisations, which will be especially cost-effective, because they have crucial insight into the needs of disabled people. They make it possible for disabled people to share experience and expertise, and to pool overheads such as payroll costs.
I hope that local authorities will give support at a suitably early stage. Paragraph 6 of the consultation document states:
The Bill starts from the point where, following an assessment".
If we start to provide support only following an assessment, it will be too late. From the moment an assessment is contemplated, the question whether it would be appropriate for a disabled person to use direct payments should be under active consideration. I should not need to stress, but it may be worth so doing, that disabled people must be fully involved in the assessment of need, because nobody understands their needs better than they do.
I welcome the Government's proposal to permit direct payments to be used to pay for the costs of aids and adaptations. That is an encouraging flexibility, but disabled people need expert advice on that especially. It can involve much bafflement and the waste of a great deal of money. In everyone's interest, it is important that competent, expert advice should be available to disabled people locally. I ask the Minister to assure the House that the provision will not restrict the existing entitlement to aids and adaptations for which there is no charge.
I was puzzled that the consultation document proposes that direct payments should be usable for a maximum of only four weeks' respite care in a 12-month period. I do not understand the basis for that arbitrary figure. I think that judgments should be made case by case, as the amount of respite that may be needed will vary greatly between households. Respite care is an excellent investment: it enables people to remain in their own


homes or allows carers to continue to provide care for longer periods. That is highly desirable in itself, as well as cost-effective.
I hope that the Government will not give with one hand and take away with the other when it comes to charging. The charging regime across the country is riddled with inconsistencies and inequities. We must have some national guidance in order to establish a more acceptable pattern and achieve greater consistency and fairness in that field. I note that the Government intend to dock direct payments by removing charges before the payments reach disabled people. I believe that that is discriminatory and I hope that the Government will reconsider their decision. Why should the Government take from disabled people the resources that enable them to meet community care charges, rather than allowing them to act for themselves, as others do? In any case, disabled people should have the power to negotiate the appropriate level of charging. They may need to hold a valid discussion with social services authorities on the subject.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the restrictions that are imposed on members of a disabled person's family who may qualify for payment through a direct payment scheme. It is impossible, as well as undesirable, for the state to shoulder responsibility for the vast effort that goes into informal care. There are some 6 million carers in our society and the state should not intrude upon care that is willingly and lovingly given by relatives and friends. However, we take too much for granted that extensive devotion and care.
Very tight restrictions govern the invalid care allowance, and £32.25 per week is a meagre allocation. While the Government are considering policy in this field, I hope that they will examine support for carers. The principle that the state should, in appropriate circumstances, subsidise family members who care for a disabled person is already established through the existence of the invalid carers allowance.
The list of exclusions in the consultation document as to family members' eligibility to receive payment is strangely arbitrary—for example, a niece or a cousin is not precluded. The guidelines are too rigid—although the Government acknowledge that flexibility may be needed in rural areas, such as my constituency, where it is not easy to find people outside families who are available and capable of assuming a caring role. It would be very unfortunate to preclude payments to family members in areas such as south Warwickshire. I hope that the Government's intentions in that area will be interpreted much more generously.
The Government do not need to fear that there will be an enormous explosion in the amount that is spent supporting family members who are also carers. Many disabled people would love to be less dependent and to feel less of a burden upon their families. They often wish not to employ family members but, where they do, we must recognise that that can be extremely cost-effective.
The Government are proposing two different sets of rules. The consultation document sets out the limitations on the employment of family members under direct payment schemes. However, there is a rather more generous system with the independent living fund. I suggest that it would be sensible to have common

criteria for both schemes—not least because a not inconsiderable number of disabled people will receive funding from both sources. I hope that, in making a cost-benefit analysis of their proposals, the Government will recognise that, by supporting family carers, they may give disabled people the opportunity to work and to contribute to the economy.
That leads me to the question of means testing. I am sorry that the Government intend to require local authorities to provide direct payments on a means-tested basis. We have seen a huge extension of means testing in the welfare state, with many associated difficulties, which were described in the debate yesterday. I fear that, for people who have very high care costs because of severe disablement, but who are capable of joining the labour force and contributing to the economy, means testing could be the pressure that tips them out of the labour market. They may feel that the game is not worth the candle: that they cannot afford to go on earning if they will lose the benefit that allows them to meet the high costs of personal care.
I offer those points in a constructive spirit. I have no desire to crab the Bill, which I welcome very much. I regret that the Government took so long to reconcile themselves to the desirability of direct payments, but I hope that in politics there will always be welcome for the sinner who has repented—even unto crossing the Floor. I hope that the consultation process will prove to be genuine and that the Government will consider carefully, sympathetically and constructively the responses to it. I hope also that, in Committee, the Government will improve their proposed eligibility conditions, move towards a satisfactory national definition of standards and commit themselves to providing funding on an appropriate scale. The Government have accepted the principle of direct payments: it is now important that they implement that principle generously.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this well-informed debate. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interest that they have shown in the direct payment scheme and I congratulate them on their commitment to it. I refer specifically to the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who have obviously faced an uphill task in persuading their colleagues that that important measure should be enshrined in legislation.
I pay tribute also to the progressive contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who looked beyond the Bill at how to address the future needs of disabled people. My rugby league team recently beat my hon. Friend's team, so I must ensure that I build up my stock and increase my credibility with him over time.
This is a small Bill, but it has considerable potential. I recognise the reasonable manner in which the Minister presented the Bill on Second Reading. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the Opposition recognise that the Bill has shortcomings and is limited in its scope and application. I know that in Committee the Minister will listen to the concerns raised by hon. Members, disability groups and local authorities who want to contribute to the success of the direct payment scheme.
There should be a greater sense of outrage in relation to how disabled people are treated in this country. More Members of Parliament should be present at debates such as this to ensure that disabled people's rights—basic civil rights—are recognised. I am also concerned about the length of time it takes to get things done for disabled people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) said, these schemes exist and work, but we have had to wait a long time for this legislation to come forward and it is still discretionary. Local authorities will pursue the route that has been outlined because it is the proper thing to do and they will base their services on local need, which they are well versed in meeting.
The Government are always over-cautious, defensive and wrong in their attitudes and actions in relation to disability rights. There have been some shameful incidents—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) proposed a private Member's Bill which provided for positive and clear action for people with disabilities, but the Government watered it down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said, there are 6 million disabled people in the United Kingdom. We are approaching an election and those people will not forget how the Government treated that private Member's Bill.
People with disabilities are no longer prepared to fight in isolation or in separate groups: they now work together—they will no longer be divided and ruled, as they were in the past. A strong coalition works with disabled people in Bradford. I pay tribute to the disabled people who have travelled here to the various lobbies to ensure that their voice is heard. I also pay tribute to groups that work with people with disabilities. Many hon. Members have paid tribute to the Disablement Income Group and its excellent publication outlining its policy in relation to the Bill.
That group helped the Government to establish the independent living fund. As hon. Members have said, the fund proved conclusively that we are able to empower disabled people to develop their choices and arrangements. By 1993 the fund was making regular cash payments to more than 21,000 people and had an annual budget of £97 million, but that level of spending was going to cause a great deal of concern—and I note that the Chancellor has left the Chamber. That fund showed how disabled people could be empowered to control their lives in a way that would otherwise not have been possible.
Local authorities were looking to be creative in providing cash payments to people, but the law was ambiguous. Legal advice indicated that cash payments were permissible under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, while others were forbidden by the National Assistance Act 1948—there was a great deal of confusion. Lobbying during the passage of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Kent referred, ruled those payments to be illegal. It did not help at all. There was understandable frustration and anger because people's problems were not being fixed. Labour Members have said that disabled people want care when they want it and in a way that affects their lives—they need it to be tailored.
All hon. Members agree that direct payments can achieve increased empowerment and improve the quality of life of disabled people. However, there can be problems

in the recruitment, selection and suitability of the personal assistants to he employed. There need to be strong support mechanisms for efficient and effective use of the payments. Good-quality and appropriate advice is essential in employment and related matters. We must ensure that support mechanisms are in place. I refer to the meaning of "independent living" as defined by disabled people at a symposium in Finland:
Independent living is a process of consciousness raising and empowerment. This process enables disabled persons of all ages and with all types of disabilities to achieve equalisation of opportunities and full participation in all aspects of society. Disabled people must be in control of this process. Meaningful choices must be available in order to exercise control.
That fundamental definition embodies the philosophy that we must adopt. We can no longer say that we want to do things for or to disabled people—they must have the right to choose and to determine, where possible, what can be done with them as opposed to for them or to them.
The Bill gives local authorities discretionary powers to make payments, but there is a concern about the relationship between direct payment and the existing local authority provision. There are also cuts in the local authority budgets—my local authority in Bradford has had successive cuts year after year because of the failure of central Government. This must be looked at when we examine the detail of direct payment as opposed to the provision of the wider service.
The use of the special transitional grant also needs to be examined and a suitable balance must be reached. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will look at the problems that have been raised—he has said that he will do so following the consultation—about discrimination in disabilities. People with disabilities have enough problems without there being discrimination in relation to each disability. Ministers need to make up their minds to support the broad spectrum of disabilities. I believe that in Committee we shall iron out many of the problems contained in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will look at the arguments that have been put to him by hon. Members, by local authorities and by disabled groups.
Experienced local authorities can make assessments and they are in a good position to ensure that the test is adequately applied—that the person who is receiving the direct payment can manage it appropriately. I hope that the Minister will take into account the argument about relaxing the exclusions. The Bill appears to be too restrictive in relation to the employment of family members. I understand the proximity argument, but there is potential to look at a wider remit and there should be flexibility in relation to special needs and special circumstances. Experienced local authorities have the credibility and the compassion to deliver the choice of direct payment or the provision of service, whichever is most suitable.
Local authorities must be adequately funded, and this issue cannot be looked at in isolation—we have to look at all the services that local authorities may provide. My local authority is currently having difficulty because it has to increase its charges for social services, much to the annoyance of those who receive them. With the passage of this Bill, there will be an opportunity to soften some of the blows in relation to price increases when we look at tailoring the direct payment.
The Bill is a step in the right direction. We have been congratulating each other on getting the Bill to this stage, but the battle is not over. We must ensure that people with


disabilities are treated in a proper manner, that they are able to live their lives to the fullest extent and that they have a quality of life that takes them down the employment route with the fullest support from society.
In Bradford an opportunities for life fund has been established for young people with disabilities. It encourages employers to take on people with disabilities and provides supportive mechanisms. It makes a difference to people's lives. I believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Bill has an enticing trailer in its explanatory and financial memorandum. Like all trailers, it picks up the best bits and puts a spin on them in an attempt to make people watch the film. Just as films do not always live up to their trailers, the Bill is disappointing in that it does not live up to the explanatory and financial memorandum, the first paragraph of which states:
The purpose of the Bill is to enable local authorities to make payments to people to enable them to purchase for themselves community care services which they have been assessed by a local authority as needing.
It sets out the scope of the Bill, which has the support of the House.
Hon. Members have covered the Bill in considerable detail and pressed the Minister on various issues. Even the Minister seemed unsure as to whether the regulations would accommodate their proposals. The pressure has been in one direction, so why is there a problem? The problem is that the Bill is an enabling measure. Enabling measures always worry me. I was on the Standing Committee on the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, which was also an enabling measure to which regulations have since been attached. The legislation was inadequate because it was always envisaged that regulations would have to be added.
When I speak strongly against enabling measures, I generally point out that Adolf Hitler liked them and that they are advocated by the Militant tendency. I recognise that the Bill does not belong in that category as it is a positive measure which breaks down barriers and opens up possibilities. Even if we have a weak version of the Bill and weak regulations are attached to it, it will represent an advance and we may be able to build on it in future. However, the more concessions we gain, the easier it will be to support the measure on Third Reading instead of regurgitating the concerns which have been expressed today and will be raised in Committee.
The enabling aspects of the Bill require clarification. To whom does it apply? We have been told that 30,000 households may be eligible for assistance under the Bill. Clause 1(1) goes some way towards defining who should be included. Unfortunately, subsection (4) provides for the exclusion of certain categories, such as those over 65, so even the definition of those who are covered by the Bill needs clarification.
The definition in the Bill is taken from section 47(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 whereby a local authority can make an assessment of someone if
it appears to a local authority that he is a disabled person".

There is an argument about who may appear to be a disabled person and whether we should strengthen the provision to extend the potential take-up of the Bill.
That has been a common problem in the discussion of disabled people in debates on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have affected some 6.5 million people, but the Government never told us how many people would be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. We may be in danger of being in the same position here. A wider definition would be appropriate.
The current definition of those who appear to a local authority to be disabled persons is qualified under subsection (1)(b) which relates to those who are specified under regulations made by the Secretary of State. The measure is shot through with provisions relating to regulations, but we have yet to find out what those regulations will contain. That is unfortunate. As we debate measures, we should have a clear understanding of the areas that are covered before those measures become law. We have only a creeping understanding of the Bill. We can only hope that the Minister will respond to pressure and extend its scope. We need more precision and understanding. "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" refers to clearly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty. Any clearly defined area would be helpful in our consideration of the Bill.
As has been pointed out, the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People referred to the take-up of direct payments and stated that 60 per cent. of councils operate the system, albeit indirectly, and 90 per cent. have promised to do so when the Bill is enacted.
One crucial word will be debated extensively in Committee. That is the permissive term "may" which is used instead of the definite term "shall". Despite the pressures from local organisations, that permissive provision remains inadequate as the direct payments system could operate readily and well in some parts of the country while in other areas disabled people may be unable to exercise their rights. We must tackle that potential inequity.
A permissive right may cause difficulties for local authorities. If their accountants work out that administering direct payments instead of providing the services results in a net loss, local authorities will be under pressure not to pick up the permissive provision. They will have to measure the financial consequences against pressure from organisations for disabled people. Obviously that would not apply if local authorities were given sufficient resources. We should help to remove that choice.
Subsection (4) allows for the exclusion of certain categories. Hon. Members have referred to those who are over 65. One of my constituents contributed evidence to the consultation document. His concerns are at the other end of the scale. He has an 11-year-old daughter who will eventually be eligible for direct payments. He is concerned about her future. What he said would have made an excellent speech today—probably better than mine—to illustrate the difficulties that must be addressed in the Bill.
I am concerned about the exclusion of those over 65, and about access to direct payments by future generations of disabled people. I am particularly


concerned about the problems of those who suffer from learning difficulties. I understand that there is an additional problem in that the Bill does not contain the same provisions as the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which provided for people with learning difficulties to have the details of its provisions presented in an accessible fashion.
Many other aspects of the Bill need to be clarified and enhanced. In the other place, Baroness Cumberlege gave details on Third Reading of a host of matters that she promised would be taken up in some way—for example, the idea that reports should be presented to Parliament every three years after enactment and that support in the form of guidance be given to recipients of the direct payments so that they can handle their responsibilities as employers, an important matter that has been dealt with at great length. A number of other topics will also be the subject of guidance. Reports, guidance provisions and details of eligibility, which Baroness Cumberlege mentioned, are matters that we, as serious legislators, should ensure are in the Bill so that solid decisions can be made.
The trailer to the Bill, as I described the explanatory and financial memorandum, contains other items of fascination. Towards the end of the trailer we are told that the financial effects of the Bill
will be implemented within existing resources.
The problem is that the Government are rather good at passing legislation that imposes responsibilities on local authorities without supplying authorities with the resources that they need to fulfil their obligations. That has certainly been the case with community care and it is a key issue in this instance. Adequate ring-fenced funding that is properly provided in, for example, standard spending assessments is something that needs to be tackled.
At the end of the explanatory and financial memorandum is a paragraph headed, "Effect of the Bill on public service manpower". Interestingly, it states:
It is expected that any effects will be small.
It seems that the Government are anticipating that this is, finally, a small mouse of a measure and will not be picked up and run with to the extent that it should be. I hope that we can change some aspects of the Bill so that a fresh trailer has to be presented in order that the measure can be sold, although I accept that it contains some positive provisions.
No Northern Ireland Members of Parliament are here tonight—they have other things on their minds at the moment—but I know that there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland across all political parties about the rights of disabled people. Indeed, among the sponsors of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 were members of four different political parties from Northern Ireland, and various Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (Northern Ireland) Bills have been produced.
The Bill, however, excludes Northern Ireland. The only part of the Bill that refers to Northern Ireland is clause 6 which states that an Order in Council will be laid. Although Northern Ireland was not initially included in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—or perhaps only in the same terms as in this Bill—the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland was such that that situation was changed and new provisions relating to Northern Ireland

were included. A complex addition was made in order that that measure should apply to Northern Ireland—a problem that is usually avoided by the Order in Council provision.
Another of the Bill's inadequacies in respect of Northern Ireland is that whereas the regulations intended to be produced for England, Wales and Scotland are to be introduced under the affirmative procedure so that the House has an opportunity to vote on them, provisions for Northern Ireland are brought in under the negative procedure, presumably because of the complexity of the Order in Council system. That means that there has to be an attempt to force the regulations relating to Northern Ireland to the Floor of the House for debate.
Of the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate, six served on the Committee which debated the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in 1995 and showed their solid commitment to its principles and the desire to obtain full civil rights for disabled people. One would therefore expect them to advance the provisions of the current Bill so that they become general rights available for all rather than rights restricted by provisions that the Minister will introduce in regulations.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Because of the shortage of time, I shall be as brief as possible. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in support of the Bill which proves that, given time, even this Government can produce legislative proposals worthy of support. I do, however, have one major criticism, and join the other hon. Members who have criticised the exclusion of people over the age of 65.
As someone who is over 65, I was disappointed to note that people over that age will be excluded from the Bill's provisions. Given that the majority of disabled people are over 65, this is blatant age discrimination by the Government, which I deplore. Age should not be a criterion for reducing payment to someone who needs to purchase care services. I hope that the Government will rethink their stance on this issue in Committee.
With the qualification about the age limit, I welcome the principle behind the Bill, as it is a significant extension of the rights of disabled persons which will enable them to exercise real control and choice in their lives. The first significant change which I predict will result from giving disabled people this economic power will be a change in the culture of the care service providers as their operation becomes more responsive to the user. That is to be welcomed, as it underlines the important principle that a disabled person can exercise his or her rights and is not merely the recipient of welfare, which, sadly, has been characteristic of some care services in the past.
As the Member of Parliament for Ealing, Southall, I represent a significant Asian population which has a different language and culture and many different needs compared to what in broad terms, is called the white population. I therefore suggest the need for care providers to be sensitive to the needs of that client group and for the councils that regulate the care providers to understand the cultural sensitivity of the population when they receive any complaints or any comments. That leads me to stress that, with the extension of what will become a market in the provision of care services, there must be strict regulation of the care service providers.
I press the Government to ensure that a properly funded regulatory system is put in place to avoid abuses by crooks or cowboy operators who are out to exploit vulnerable people. That system should be complemented by resources to enable local councils to produce information on the new arrangements so that people who are in need of community care services can choose to purchase those services, if they wish. The information should include the scope of the services available, details of the support services available to disabled persons to help them to use their new rights and details of the period in which applications are expected to be approved.
I make a plea for the guidelines to be drawn up in partnership and consultation with organisations for disabled people so that they are not produced purely by the councils, because some local authorities may be tempted to do that. When a person is unhappy about the help given by the council, there should be an appeals procedure which falls within the ambit of the existing appeal procedures and the ambit of the local government ombudsman on grounds of maladministration.
I turn now to the thorny issue of finance. The new system must not be used as a cover by the Government for a cut in the support that they give to local authorities. Any cost savings to local authorities due to user-operated commissioning procedures will be balanced, in my judgment, by the additional expenditure by local authorities on bureaucracy and support for service users, for which there is currently no financial provision.
Finally, I wish to reiterate my support for the Bill as a significant step forward for the rights of disabled people—which the much trumpeted Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not—and to ask that its provisions be extended to include people over the age of 65.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I pay tribute to the First centre for the disabled which serves the needs of men and women with disabilities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and in my constituency. Both of us regularly attend the centre's annual general meeting and we assist by counting the votes in the elections for its office bearers, because we are the only people who attend who do not have a vote.
The First centre for the disabled is so called because it is the first of its kind in Scotland. If there are no such similar places in England, that is a great pity and I suggest that hon. Members visit the centre to see for themselves what excellent provision can be made. The point about the centre, and the reason why I have mentioned it in this debate, is not only that it provides a wealth of activities that may surprise anyone who does not know what can be opened up to the participation of people with disabilities, but that it was planned and campaigned for by people with disabilities in the north of Glasgow. Before they had the centre, they had nowhere to call their own. The centre is a first-class example of what people can do for themselves. It is an eye-opener and I recommend a visit to any hon. Member and a party of his or her disabled constituents. They would be made very welcome and would be inspired.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) raised the question of resources. I hope that the future of the centre is safe, because the City of Glasgow council is facing horrific cuts in its budget as a result of the Government's local government finance policies. For example, many community education centres are facing closure. It would be completely unacceptable if, after the long struggle to create the centre, there was any diminution in the services that it provides. That would be an absolute scandal, because the people whom the centre serves had so little until recently.
We should consider the general history of how this country has treated people with disabilities. For many years, needs were ignored. Then came a better period in which provision was treated as a kindness, and consideration for disabled people was the name of the game. In the past few decades, people with disabilities have campaigned for themselves and that has won dignity for them. Self-determination is the key, not only to the Bill but to any aspects of the lives of people with disabilities. The Bill should provide disabled people with wider choices—choices that we who do not have any disabilities take for granted.
In my constituency, there are a number of elderly Asians and Asians with disabilities. That creates especial difficulties for them which must be addressed by ensuring that they have access to services and that their views and needs are respected. They, too, should have the right of self-determination.
As drafted, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to limit the groups of people who would be able to participate in the new direct payment services. The Government have stated that they do not intend to include people with learning disabilities at the start. I have read a briefing from Mencap on the subject, which rightly pointed out that it is important that people with learning disabilities have the same opportunities to benefit from the scheme as people with other disabilities. People with learning disabilities, however severe, are often capable of making choices about what they want and with whom they want to be. Obviously, they may need help to identify and manage their options, but unless people with learning disabilities are part of the process from the beginning, the potential problems, benefits and possible adjustments needed can only be guessed at.
Under the Bill, no direct payments will be made to anyone in long-term residential accommodation. That rule might seem sensible, but if it is applied inflexibly, it might inhibit the progress of young disabled people who have hopes of moving into the community and living more independently. They should be given transitional help.
The new system should not serve as a cheap or easy option for some local authorities, especially given their financial constraints, by allowing them to cut their services—particularly in remote areas. The measure should not become a means of passing responsibility for an underfunded, failing community care system to disabled people. They may be unable to manage their budgets due to inadequate funding, which could be extremely demoralising and threaten their independence.
If a disabled person wants to use direct payments to employ a care assistant, he or she should not have to assume responsibility as an employer for tax, national insurance and similar liabilities—but could be allowed to do so if he or she wished. When one considers that some


employers who undertake those responsibilities as a daily task experience difficulty, we should be cautious about imposing them on people who might otherwise never have them. Hon. Members who complete their tax returns will have some idea of the difficulties.
Domiciliary services ought to be of high quality throughout the country, and their users should be treated with dignity, respect and courtesy at all times. There must be mechanisms to ensure that any deficiencies in the standard of care, or abuses of the recipients of that care, are brought to light. Problems should not be hidden away because of developments arising from the Bill.
Clients of domiciliary care are among the most vulnerable members of the population, yet they are currently afforded little protection in their own homes compared with people in residential care. I want a statutory framework of national minimum standards of domiciliary care for elderly and disabled people. I do not mean a rigid list of services that users must accept whether they like it or not; I mean a menu of choice incorporating minimum standards. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 is inadequate for ensuring the standards that we are debating. I agree that the key to the future of domiciliary services is the statutory registration and inspection of private agencies.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I am glad to return to the House, despite prior engagements, to participate in this debate. I know from a visit with the Minister that he is caring and tries to do his best when he has control over policy. However, having read the briefs and debates in the other place, I believe that he may have problems, because it is not him with whom we have to deal but the Government. I am by nature a person who is suspicious of any authority.
The Bill is welcome to the extent that 72 per cent. of disabled people want more independence. I have said before that language is important, and I often feel that the phrase "disabled people" is wrong. People with disabilities who overcome them are no longer disabled. I have experience of that, because for 14 years before entering the House, I taught children with learning difficulties who faced a physical or intellectual challenge. Fifty-nine per cent. of people with disabilities believe that legislation that gives them cash in their hands to use in a way of their choosing frees them from their disabilities in some respects, so the Bill is welcome.
My noble Friends and Government Members in the other place were concerned that the regulations were not specified. It is odd for a Bill to come before the House when consultation on the relevant regulations has not been completed. Because the Government are so bereft of legislation this year, obviously they had to introduce the Bill before the consultations were completed, which is a back-to-front way of operating. I accept that specific details cannot be put on the face of a Bill, but lots of people are wondering what will come out of the consultation. Will it reflect the wishes of people with disabilities, or will the Government again be guilty—as they have been for 16 years—of asking for opinions but not changing their views? I see the Minister of State, Scottish Office on the Front Bench. He knows what happened over the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, where consultation was completely and utterly ignored

and the Government went ahead with their mad scheme anyway. We have experience of a Government who consult and then ignore the wishes that have been expressed. The Bill is welcome, but with that reservation.
Another matter that worries people are the exclusions. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that 37 per cent. of the clients of the independent living fund—the only benchmark we have as to how people will spend money that is given to them—are over 65. Yet that group will be excluded from the scope of the Bill. There is some contradiction there. Any consultation should also be based on an historical study. If 37 per cent. of users of the ILF are over 65, surely that shows that they are the people who feel best able to use cash in their hands. They usually have experience of life; sometimes they have a caring partner with experience of management in professional life. Yet they will not have a chance to use the scheme. The Government should think again about that.
I am personally interested in people who have learning disabilities. I do not think that we should always just draw on our own experience and use empiricism. I taught people with learning difficulties for long enough and, as the constituency that I represent is in the same area, I now meet those people as adults. They are quite capable—with the support of family, a community group or local authority staff, or even a voluntary agency—of putting together a life plan. Many people with learning disabilities now leave school with a record of achievement and go on to demand training and a balanced life, and are not just stuck in a corner, as many people once thought they should be. Yet, under the Bill, they will be excluded from use of the new fund.
In the study made by the independent living fund—an historical study worth looking at—18 per cent. of its awards went to people with learning disabilities. So often, we see people who might be said to have learning disabilities, for example, those who are profoundly deaf, yet we see people like Evelyn Glennie, who is a world-renowned percussionist, despite being profoundly deaf. People with cerebral palsy are now able, through the use of modern computers, to write not just diaries but important philosophical works, as Professor Stephen Hawking has proved. When someone overcomes a disability, he or she is no longer disabled. A learning disability can be overcome as well. We have every right to be concerned that that group is to be excluded.
Disability Alliance made a point of sending all of us a brief, which I am sure the Minister received and read with interest, arguing that those categories should not be excluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) said earlier that discrimination against groups of people is being written on the face of the Bill. Given the debates that have taken place in the House over the past four or five years, surely the Government should avoid that.
Another category is mental health service users—sadly, a growing category. All of us have experiences in our constituencies of people who require mental health services. Again, we should be worried if there is any question of those people being excluded from cash payments. Disability Alliance could not furnish us with exact figures of where the independent living fund has been made available, so in a sense that is a deficiency in the present independent living fund that could be made good by the Government if they would accept sensible amendments to the Bill. Those two matters concern me.
Something that also worries me is the idea that the Government might want to detach a number of people from the communal provision that social services are able to put together. It is being touted as a privatisation issue, when Opposition Members and those who spoke in favour of it would see it as a liberalisation provision.
Constituency experiences involving the independent living fund cause me to worry about whether there is any break with the social services in plans for the use of the cash. One of my constituents, who has looked after a severely ill wife with a debilitating disease, told me that, when he examined his expenditure, he found that 30 per cent. of what he was spending on services from the independent living fund paid agencies' administration fees. He was distressed by that—and, indeed, the idea that people must choose between the social services and agencies must give us all cause for concern.
Given the ethos of his Government over the past 16 years, the Minister will admit that, if there is money around, someone in the private sector will try to make a profit. I should like to think that the regulations will allow arrangements similar to those governing the life plan—the post-school training and education plans—for the young people whom I used to teach. Those arrangements were made with the education authority; subsequently, the plan became the responsibility of the young person concerned. Similarly, those intending to take the cash for community care rather than receiving the service directly should work out a plan with the social services and their carers or support groups.
Charges have been a problem. I hope that the Minister read section D of the brief from the Carers National Association. According to recent research by the association, one in five councils have increased their charges by 10 per cent. or more in the past year, and one in four carers are experiencing hardship as a result of such increases. People have been cancelling services that they need for that reason.
One of the factors that underlie the Government's philosophy is their assumption that authorities will raise 9 per cent. of their income through charges. The Carers National Association, and Opposition Members, fear that people will be driven to take cash in hand because of the expense involved in direct use of local authority services. They will look for a cheaper option, which may be offered by agencies. Despite their slick presentation, the service provided by those agencies may not ultimately match the needs of disabled people.
The association drew attention to a recent report by the National Consumer Council, which examined the way in which authorities across the country were drawing up and administering charging policies. The report concluded that charging guidance from central Government was ambiguous. The Minister should take that on board, and, if possible, clarify the question of charging in the regulations. That would deal with the complaint that the local picture is often very confused.
The report says that, in particular, guidance should be given to people on income support and other means-tested benefits. It is often difficult to make such benefits go far enough and, if cash in hand is provided to meet specific needs, budgets may become mixed up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) pointed out,

budgeting may not be the greatest strength of people with debilitating illnesses or long-term problems, who may be concentrating on their medical care and consequently find themselves in financial trouble. We must also take into account those receiving attendance and disability living allowance. Given the rather frightening signals from the Department of Social Security, which wants to save a further £1 billion, people who think that they are receiving more money may, in fact, suffer from the removal of finance from another part of the social security budget.
I have a naturally suspicious nature, and I have noted the way in which the Government have handled the amounts going to people in need in my constituency. I have also read the briefings. I hope that the Minister will reveal the results of his consultations in Committee, and will tell us then exactly what the regulations will say. If he does not, although a welcome step in the right direction will have been made, we may be walking into the mire in a way that we shall all regret.

Mr. Alan Milburn: For the benefit of the House, I should declare at the outset that I receive research assistance from Unison, although I am not representing its views in this debate.
The debate has been especially well informed and considered, and overwhelmingly consensual, with hon. Members often drawing on local experience and their interface with local disability organisations. We have had on display an array of national talent and expertise on issues affecting disabled people.
In some senses, it is slightly invidious to single out particular Members for attention, but I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for their long-standing commitment to disabled people's rights. We have had important speeches from those hon. Members, and from all who have spoken.
The Bill has been broadly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been long desired both by disabled people and by the organisations that represent them. We have come a long way since the pioneering work of the early 1980s in Hampshire to encourage independent living among disabled people. That experiment has found an echo throughout the land.
By 1990, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation found that more than 60 per cent. of local authorities were operating some form of direct payments scheme—albeit through third-party agencies—despite the somewhat doubtful legal status both of their establishment and sometimes of their operation. The Bill legalises the direct payments approach, and at last gives official sanction to a new and highly popular form of community care.
The success of the independent living fund is but the most graphic illustration of how an approach that maximises user choice resonates with disabled people. When the ILF was established, it was estimated that only around 300 new awards a year would be made, but, by 1993, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) reminded the House, 22,000 people were receiving payments. The Governments's decision to close the ILF in 1993 flew in the face not only of its popularity, but of its achievements.
A 1994 study for the Policy Studies Institute and for the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People summarised the benefits that flowed from the ILF. It said:
enabling disabled people to organise their own support arrangements offers considerably more choice, control and flexibility than direct service provision; consequently, direct payments are seen as greatly increasing disabled people's independence.
Tragically, the Government have a history of coming only belatedly to recognise the case of disabled people for improved rights. Organisations such as the Disablement Income Group, the Disability Alliance and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People have long campaigned for such a Bill. They have received handsome support from organisations as diverse as the Association of Directors of Social Services, housing and local authority associations and many others, including the House of Commons Select Committee on Health.
There is almost universal agreement that direct payments are a positive and innovative development that secures better delivery of community care services. They make the disabled person the centre of the care system rather than its dependant. That point was amply made in a telling contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
The first choice of most elderly and disabled people is to live independently in their own homes, and to feel part of the community. For care in the community to succeed, it must enable all people to live with the same respect for their dignity and autonomy. Direct payments allow services to be suited to the needs of the individual, rather than the individual having to suit the needs of the services. In other words, direct payments empower service users by allowing the user to shape the service rather than be shaped by it.
It is not only disabled people who benefit from direct payments. The taxpayer can also be a net gainer. The right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) told us that it is reckoned that direct payments result in average savings of between 30 and 40 per cent. on comparable service provision. When a disabled person is commissioning services it puts him or her in charge, gives real choice and provides cost-effective care.
The principles of the Bill are a matter of political consensus, which I welcome, but its fine print is a subject of real dispute, and the fine print has dominated our debate. In the first place, it is regrettable that the Bill was introduced in another place before the publication of the consultation document outlining in much more detail the Government's thinking on many of the specifics of the Bill.
It is also a matter for regret that the results of the consultation exercise, which finished last month, have still not been made available. Inevitably, the debate has sometimes felt a bit like a shot in the dark, with hon. Members on both sides of the House having to second-guess what is in the minds of Ministers about the final detail of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire rightly called the measure an enabling Bill, and was therefore cautious about it. Similar suspicions were voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty).
I believe that it is not beyond the wit of the Under-Secretary to arrange the consultation exercises and the debates on the Bill so that those who debate it both here

and in another place can fully consider the facts. I hope that he can at least give us an assurance tonight that the results of the consultation exercise will be published before the Bill goes into Committee. Otherwise, we shall continue to rehearse backwards and forwards all the arguments we have had over the past few hours, and still be taking a shot in the dark.
It is especially important that the principle of openness applies to the Bill, because, as we know, it is planned to make so many of its detailed provisions by regulation rather than by primary legislation. None the less, several concerns are already clear. They have been flagged up by the disability organisations, by my noble Friends in another place, and by hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight.
The major concern expressed by organisations such as the Law Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Carers National Association, MIND and the Disability Alliance relates to the artificial restrictions imposed on the categories of people who will be eligible to receive direct payments under the Bill. That concern was made clear by the hon. Members for Bolton, North-East, for Mid-Kent and for Brighton, Kemptown, my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).
The whole point of the Bill is to put disabled people and their needs at the centre of the care system. It is about treating the individual as an individual, regardless of their disability. Instead, the Government seem to be determined to disempower individuals according to the category of disability that they have been placed in by the Secretary of State.
Surely it is entirely incompatible with the whole thrust of the Bill, and with what the Minister said earlier, to deny the choice of receiving direct payments simply because an individual is either too old or too young, or has the wrong sort of disability according to the Secretary of State's arbitrary diktat. We believe that anybody suffering from any disability may be suitable, and should be eligible, for direct payments rather than services. We have much sympathy with those who argue that direct payments should be available in every local authority area to ensure equal access to the benefits that flow from them.
Since direct payments will represent a departure for some authorities, however, we are willing to concede that there should be no mandatory obligation on councils to offer them, providing that two key concerns are met. First, the Minister should actively encourage local authorities to introduce direct payments, and secondly, all classes of disabled people should be allowed access to them.
If we are serious about treating individuals as individuals and about shaping services to meet individual needs, it surely follows that age or disability should form no barrier to qualification for a direct payment. After all, someone who is in their late 60s may be much better qualified to take advantage of a direct payment than someone in their early 30s. Similarly, someone with a moderate learning difficulty may have a greater capacity and willingness to deal with direct payments than someone with a severe physical disability, which leaves them frail, poorly and sometimes confused.
The tests for direct payments should be solely about whether the person is in need and has been assessed as requiring community care services and whether direct payments represent value for money for the authority and are in the best interests of the individual who is able and willing to take advantage of them. Those should be the tests—no more and no less.
Instead, the consultation document issued by the Department tries to make the Secretary of State's discretion predominant in determining who will gain access to what we all believe is an innovative and exciting means of putting disabled people at the centre of the care process. Frankly, such arrogance flies in the face of a needs-led approach to the care of disabled people. I hope that the Minister will carefully review the matter, not only in the light of the 300 responses to his consultation document, but because of what he has heard in the debate. A consensus has been established, and I hope that he will listen.
I should like to highlight two issues. First, given that community care services are available to people over the age of 65, an age limit seems especially unnecessary and unfair. More than one third of clients of the former ILF were aged over 60 in any case, and research into current local authority payment schemes shows that only two out of the eight authorities studied explicitly ruled out people over the age of 65.
Similarly, as the ILF has given 18 per cent. of its awards to people with learning disabilities, excluding them from direct payments is equally unfounded. It also contradicts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon reminded us, the recent Law Commission recommendation that there should be a presumption against lack of capacity.
There remains a real worry—again, I hope the Minister will address this when he winds up—that unless the Government relent and broaden the eligibility criteria, some people will lose the direct payments that they are currently enjoying through third-party agencies. It is surely not the Government's intention to narrow or remove opportunities that disabled people currently enjoy. Yet the eligibility criteria as defined in the consultation document do precisely that.
The Opposition will not accept the undermining of the Bill's purpose by its proposed means of implementation; nor will we accept the denial of real choice entailed in the Government's restriction of direct payments to certain groups of selected people. That is why we will be tabling amendments to the Bill to ensure that real choice is available to as wide a range of disabled people as possible.
We shall also be seeking to broaden choice in other ways. These take several forms. To allow people to make informed decisions about whether they wish to receive direct payments for certain services, it is vital that advice and information is provided to them. Under the Bill, hundreds of disabled people could become employers for the first time. They will need support.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Bradford, South pointed out, the lesson from the independent living fund is that the best-run schemes were on the basis of the advice and support available to the

disabled people who had access to the funds. The Bill must ensure that such services are available to disabled people—should they require them—to maximise choices about whether direct payments are an option for them.
Choice should be maximised by ensuring that the distinction that the Government rightly make between formal and informal care is not drawn so tightly that a disabled person is prevented from employing any family member on a paid basis. Of course we do not want informal care to be brought into a cash-for-care arrangement, but we recognise that disabled people will want to employ those they know and trust, particularly when it comes to the performance of intimate tasks for them. In some cases, they may have little choice in any case, because of where they live, their domestic arrangements or the nature of their disability. The consultation document's virtual blanket ban on employing any relative runs against the grain of the needs of those disabled people. We hope that the Minister will concede that the proposals are too prohibitive, and need to be reviewed.
It is vital that choice is not restricted by adverse charging policies. The Bill proposes to treat service users and cash users on an equal basis, so, just as an individual is charged for a service, he will also have to make a financial contribution towards the equivalent direct payment. There can be no argument about that, but we have a number of concerns. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that certain social security benefits received by disabled people should be disregarded in calculating the amount of direct payment or financial contribution that an individual is expected to make.
I also hope that the Minister will make it clear that direct payments are to be used for social care services only, and will not be used as a substitute for health service responsibilities. That distinction is vital, since otherwise direct payments received by disabled people will be means-tested even if they have to be used to purchase services that they should be receiving free of charge.
I also hope that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said, there will be a level playing field between community care services and direct payments in lieu of them, so that no means test is involved if direct payment is made where the equivalent service is provided free. That assurance would be extremely welcome.
Finally—and most fundamentally of all, in my view—the proposal to leave it up to individual local authorities to decide how to take into account service users' financial status when setting the level of direct payment is, frankly, a charter for confusion. The care that a person receives and the price he pays should not depend on where he lives.
Last year, a National Consumer Council report on local authority charging procedures found that charging systems for non-residential social services were structured differently in virtually every local authority area. The NCC found also that widely different criteria were used by local authorities to assess people's ability to pay. It would be tragic if the same situation developed for those receiving direct payments for care. Is it not now time for a national framework for charging policies for social care, to end what has become a lottery?
Disabled people living in Dorset should be entitled to the same financial assessment as disabled people living in Durham. After all, their needs will not differ even if the respective areas are different.
The Bill provides a golden opportunity for the Government to consider ending the restriction on choice that applies to so many community care users merely because there is such latitude in the ways in which local authorities are allowed to charge for services.
The Bill provides an opportunity for the Government to take further action. Although those receiving direct payments may decide to purchase care from a number of sources, the Bill will almost certainly lead to increased use of services provided by independent sector domiciliary care agencies. There should be no objections to that, provided that the services offered to disabled people are of the highest quality and standard.
There lies the nub of what might be a problem. When other care providers are subject to greater registration requirements and inspections, there is still no statutory framework governing the operation of domiciliary care providers, despite the fact that the services they provide are made available in an individual's home, and are therefore subject to much less scrutiny.
The clients of domiciliary care agencies are among the most vulnerable people in the population, yet the protection afforded to them in their own homes is negligible compared with that which is available to clients in residential care. That is why organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services, in responding to the Bill, have called for the regulation of providers of domiciliary care. Their calls have been echoed this evening by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Wakefield. I hope that the Registration of Domiciliary Care Agencies Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, will be considered by the Minister in the light of the Bill before us.
The calls to which I have referred have been repeatedly echoed by Labour Members. I know that these calls have been taken up by many providers in the private sector. Domiciliary care agencies that have taken up these calls recognise that they are providing care for extremely vulnerable people, individuals who have few opportunities to raise concerns about services and who need protection from unscrupulous operators. It is in the interests of us all to drive the cowboys out of the industry. Everyone wants to see that happen.
The Bill brings to a head all the tensions about the lack of a regulatory framework for private domiciliary care. I know that the Minister will say that he has only recently finished consulting on a Government document designed to move things forward, and that it is too early to give any categorical views on what the Government have in store for the future registration and inspection system. However, I believe that it is incumbent upon him to give some assurances this evening that it is at least in his mind to provide a proper form of regulation for domiciliary care. We are dealing with extremely vulnerable people receiving services paid for from the public purse in their homes. Both public money and disabled people deserve proper protection.
The Bill is a great opportunity radically to improve services for disabled people. Our proposals for strengthening its provisions will make the individual's needs ever more the focus of services. It provides a model that can be built upon. All too often, disabled people, and other community care service users, are reduced to a state of artificial dependency by their contact with statutory agencies.
The whole thrust of community care is surely to reverse that process, and ensure that elderly and disabled people or those with mental health problems have their needs addressed in such a way that they are able to participate to the fullest extent possible in the community. It is time that users were given more power to shape their services.
The Bill points the way towards a time when service users will shape the whole plethora of community care services, not only by purchasing for themselves but by defining new standards that will make community care services more user-focused and user-friendly.
The Bill is a good one—we do not argue with that—but it could and should be a lot better. Our proposals seek to strengthen it and give life to the philosophy that underpins it. We believe that disabled people deserve the best and we will do all in our power to ensure that when the Bill has completed its passage, it delivers the very best for this and future generations of disabled people.

Mr. Bowis: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, this has been a good debate. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) referred to it as "consensual". I presume that that means that it was a debate between consenting adults, which is probably right. There has been a great deal of agreement about the quality and worth of the measure.
There have been well-deserved tributes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) as the father of the independent living fund, so "Our Father, who art behind me" is the spirit of the measure, which is in that tradition. The ILF had tighter eligibility criteria than those in the Bill, and was more limited in the scope of the services involved. However, it was the Bill's forerunner, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work with disabled people, and especially on the ILF.
I gladly accept the universal welcome for the Bill. The debate centred on three things: the regulations, the guidance and the practical support that can be given as the Bill is implemented. In answer to an earlier question, I should say that we are talking about negative resolution procedures at subsequent stages.
The regulations have focused on several issues. The eligibility criteria have been central. The Bill was a response to younger physically disabled people who said that it would greatly enhance their working lives. That is where we started from, and why we have come from that direction. I remember talking to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) when we were considering what to do. He urged us to be cautious and careful, and do it in steps, and we have sought to do that.
Some local authorities have urged us to do it in stages, although there has been great enthusiasm for the all-in-one-go approach in the House tonight. That is why we heard the Kemptown warning, if I may call it that, from my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden): whatever the House agrees to, there will be pressure on local authorities to bring it in as quickly as possible for people who are eligible. It is a question of which stages at what time; where we go and how soon.
When I opened the debate, I said that I was listening, and that I wanted to hear from hon. Members, as we have heard from people responding to our consultation paper.
Today, hon. Members have put forward their views about the learning disability extension. We made it clear that we would listen to their views very carefully, as we did in another place. Hon. Members referred to physically disabled people over the age of 65—and not just those who turned 65 having qualified previously. I hear their messages, and we will take them into account, together with all other views.
Hon. Members raised questions about the charging system. I emphasise that the discretionary charging system is exactly the same as that for community care services. There should be no difference between the two systems, and I hope that I have reassured hon. Members in that regard.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Minister accept that we are not really comparing like with like? While we want to see a level playing field in that respect, there is a difference between enabling the users of direct payments to be good employers and to meet that range of costs, and charging them for the services that are provided directly by social services. They are not the same things, and the Minister will not achieve his objective easily.

Mr. Bowis: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I shall return to it at a later stage. It would be quite wrong for someone to be charged for services provided under the discretionary charging system if someone who received the same services through the direct payment scheme were free of those charges. We want to ensure that there is a level playing field.
Reference was made to respite and the four-week period that is mentioned in the consultation paper. We are seeking views about that period, but, whatever figure is chosen, there is nothing to stop local authorities continuing to provide respite care.
Hon. Members have discussed the issue of relatives and lodgers, and there is general agreement that close relatives should be excluded under the legislation. However, there is a question as to where discretion should fall beyond them. I am conscious that we should not seek to pay relatives for emergency provision, as that is something that most relatives would be pleased to provide.
We have discussed guidance and practical support for local authorities and payees, including how to assess payments, how to guide people on legal requirements, guidance to users, and how to employ people. Those issues will be encompassed in guidelines. As to the request for the Disablement Income Group and the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People to be involved in that process, I confirm that Pauline Thompson and Jane Campbell served on the technical advisory group, and I assure hon. Members that they will continue to provide advice.
I repeat that existing schemes are not affected by the measure. If authorities decide to proceed with a scheme, that is entirely their decision. Consultation is central to

the process. We released the consultation paper as soon as possible after publishing the Bill, so that people would be aware of the sorts of issues that will be debated when the regulations come before Parliament. I think that has helped to focus the debate, and no doubt it will help to focus consideration of the Bill in its later stages.
I have been asked to put the responses in the Library, and I am happy to confirm that I shall do so. I hope that that will prove helpful. The measure extends choice, dignity and independence to disabled people.

Mr. Tom Clarke: We are very grateful to the Minister for making that commitment. Can he tell us when those responses will be available?

Mr. Bowis: I have not yet seen them myself. I shall need a short time in which to receive the responses and have them analysed, and then we shall place them in the Library.
Today we have had the beatification of Chelsea and, the absolution of Mid-Kent, and I now look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill and whatever it may bring.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS

That the draft Hydrographic Office Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

That the draft Meteorological Office Trading Fund Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Bates].

Question agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now turn to motion No. 5 on the school premises regulations. Not moved.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Ten o'clock.